Introduction

LIVES OF THE PURITANS.

INTRODUCTION:

CONTAINING A SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF NONCONFORMITY FROM THE REFORMATION, TO THE PASSING OF THE ACT OF UNIFORMITY, IN 1662.

Sect. I.

From the Commencement of the Reformation^ to the Death of Queen Mary.

Previous to the accession of King Henry VIII. popish darkness overspread the whole island of Britain. This was followed by a train of most unhappy consequences. Ignorance, superstition, immorality and persecution were predominant in every part of the kingdom. Those who presumed to think ibr themselves on religious subjects, and to dissent from the national church, underwent all the oppressions and severities of persecution. From the days of Wickliffe to this time, great numbers of excellent christians and worthy subjects, fell sacrifices to popish cruelty. This proud monarch being at first a most obedient son of the pope, treated the bold confessors of truth as obstinate rebels; and because their piety and integrity condemned his licentiousness, he put multitudes to cruel tortures and to death.

Soon after Luther arose in Saxony, England became affected by his bold and vigorous opposition to the errors of the church of Rome. The young king, vain of his scholastic learning, was unwise enough to meet the bold reformer on the field of controversy, and published a book against him.* Luther treated his royal antagonist with sarcastic contempt, contending that truth and science knew no difference between the prince and the plebeian. The pope, however, craftily flattered the vanity of the royal author, by conferring upon him the title of Defender of the Faith,* which Henry was weak enough to value as the brightest jewel in his crown. This pompous reward from his holiness was .conferred upon him in the year 1521.J

The haughty king soon discovered his ingratitude. Ho quarrelled with the pope, renounced his authority, and became his avowed enemy. Being weary of Queen Katharine his wife, with whom he had lived almost twenty years; and having long sought, but in vain, to be divorced by the pope, he was so much offended, that he utterly rejected the papal power, authority and tyranny in England. This was a dreadful blow against the Komish supremacy. But the king soon after procured the dignified and flattering t itle of Supreme Head of the Church of England. This additional jewel to his crown was conferred upon him, first by the clergy in convocation, then by act of parliament.^ Thus, in the year 1534, Henry VIII. having renounced the supremacy of the pope, and having placed himself in the chair of his holiness, at least as far as concerned the English church, did not fail to manifest his usurped power and authority. He did not intend to ease the people of their oppressions, but only change their foreign yoke for domestic fetters, dividing the pope's spoils betwixt himself and his bishops, who cared not for their father at Rome, so long as they enjoyed honours and their patrimony under another hcad.||

• Mr. Fox observes, tbat though " this book carried the king's name in the tide, it was another who minis!red the motion, and framed the style. But w hosoever had the labour of the book, the king had the thanks and the reward."—AcU and Monuments of Martyrs, vol. ii. p. 57.

+ It has been said, that the jester whom Henry, according to the custom of the times, retained at court, seeing the king overjoyed, asked the reason ; and when told, that it was because his holiness had conferred upon him this new title, he replied, " my good Harry, let thee and me defend each other, and let the faith alone to defend itself." If this was spoken an a serious joke, the fool was undoubtedly the wisest man of the two.

J Burnet's Hiit. of Refor. vol. i. p. 19.—King Henry afterwards got this sacred title united to the crown, by act of parliament; and, curious and inconsistent as it may appear, it is retained to this day.—llcyliris Hiit. of Pres. p. 235.

S Burnet's Hist of Refor. vol. i. p. 112. 136. 157.

( Memoirs of Col. Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 105. Edit. 1810.

On June 9, 1536, assembled the first reformed convocation in England ; in which Lord Cromwell, prime secretary, sat in state above the bishops, as the king's vicegerent in all spiritual matters.* On this occasion, Cromwell, by order of the king, declared, " That it was his majesty's pleasure, that the rites and ceremonies of the church should be reformed by the Rules Of Scripture, and that nothing should be maintained which did not rest on that authority ; for it was absurd, since the scriptures were acknowledged to contain the laws of religion, that recourse should be had to glosses or the decrees of popes, rather than to them."+ H-ippy had it been, if the reformers of the church of England had invariably adhered to this sacred principle. Much, however, was done even at this early period. The pious reformers rejoiced to see the holy scriptures professedly made the only standard of faith and worship, to the exclusion of all human traditions. The immediate worship of images and saints was now renounced, and purgatory declared uncertain. But the corporeal presence in the sacrament, the preservation and reverence of images, with the necessity of auricular confession, were still retained.:} The publication of Tindal and Coverdale's Translations of the Bible, greatly promoted the work of reformation; though it soon received a powerful check by the passing of the terrible and bloody act of the Six Articles. By this act, all who spoke against transubstantiation were to be burnt as heretics, and suffer the loss of all their lands and goods; and to defend the communion in both kinds, or the marriage of priests; or, to speak against the necessity of private mass, and auricular confession, was made telotiy, with the forfeiture of lands and goods.$ Towards the close of this king's reign, the popish party obtained the ascendancy ; the severity of persecution was revived ; and the Romish superstitions greatly prevailed. Till now, these superstitions had never been denominated laudable ceremonies, necessary rites, and godfj/ constitutions. All who refused to observe them, were condemned as traitors against the king. To make the standing of the persecuting prelates more secure, and their severities the more effectual, this was ratified by act of parliament. S Many excellent persons were, therefore, condemned to the flames: among whom were the famous Mr. Thomas Bilney,

Mr. Richard Byfield, Mr. John Frith, and Dr. Robert Barnes, all highly celebrated lor piety and zeal in the cause of the reformation.*

King Henry was succeeded by his son, Edward VI., a prince of most pious memory. Being only nine years and four months old when he came to the crown, he was free from bigotry and superstition, and ready to observe the instructions of Archbishop Cranmer and the Duke of Somerset, by whose aid and influence, he set himself to promote sound religion. Upon his accession, the penal laws against protestants were abolished, the chains of many worthy persons confined in prison were struck off, the prison-doors were set open, and the sufferers released. Others who had fled from the storm, and remained in a state of exile, now with joy returned home. Among the former were old Bishop Latimer and John Rogers ;t and among the latter, were Hooper, afterwards the famous martyr, and Miles Coverdale, afterwards a celebrated puritan.J Men of real worth were esteemed and preferred. Hooper became Bishop of Gloucester, and Coverdale was made Bishop of Exeter. The monuments of idolatry, with the superstitious rites and ceremonies, were commanded to be abolished, and a purer form of worship introduced. Though, during this reign, the reformation made considerable progress, the greatest part of the parochial clergy were in a state of most deplorable ignorance : but to remedy, as far as possible, this evil, the pious reformers composed and published the book of Homilies for their use.^ The order of public worship was a Liturgy or Book of Common Prayer, established by act of parliament. Though this act did not pass without much opposition, especially from the bishops, some were so enamoured with the book, that they scrupled not to say, " it was compiled by the aid of the Holy Ghost."\

In the year 1550, the altars in most cnurchcs were taken away, and convenient tables set up in their places.1 " And as the form of a table," says Burnet, " was more likely to turn the people from the superstition of the popish mass, and bring them to the right use of the Lord's Supper,

primary

curates and churchwardens in his diocese, to have it in the fashion of a table, decently covered."* This was very congenial to the wishes of many of the pious reformers, who, at this early period, publicly avowed their nonconformity to the ecclesiastical establishment. Among the articles of the above visitation, the bishop inquired, " Whether any of the anabaptists' sect, or others, use any unlawful or private conventicles, wherein they use doctrine, or administration of sacraments, separating themselves from the rest of the church ? And whether any minister doth refuse to use the common prayers, or minister the sacraments, in that order and form, as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer ?"+ The disputes about conformity were carried into the pulpits ; and whilst some warmly preached against all innovations, others as warmly preached against all the superstitions and corruptions of the old Romish church ; so that the court prohibited all preaching, except by persons licensed by the King or the Archbishop of Canterbury. +

In the convocation of 1552, forty-two Articles of Religion were agreed upon by the bishops and clergy, to which subscription was required of all ecclesiastical persons, who should officiate or enjoy any benefice in the church. And all who should refuse, were to be excluded from all ecclesiastical preferment. This appears to be the first time that subscription to the articles was enjoined.^ Here the reformation under King Edward made a stand.

During this king's reign, there were numerous debates about the habits, rites and ceremonies ; and many divines of great learning and piety, became zealous advocates foe nonconformity. They excepted against the clerical vestments, kneeling at the communion, godfathers and their promises and vows in baptism, the superstitious observance of Lent, the oath of canonical obedience, pluralities and nonresidence, with many other things of a similar description.! At this early period, there was a powerful and very considerable party disaffected to the established liturgy.i Though the reformation had already made considerable progress, its chief promoters were concerned for its further advancement. They aimed at a more perfect w ork ; and

* Burnet's Hist, of Refor. vol. it, p. 1S8.

+ Sparrow's Collection, p. 36.

$ Burnet's Hist, of Refor. vol. Hi. p. 195.

^ Sparrow's Collection, p. 39.—Strype's Eccl. Mem. vol. ii. p. 420.
jj MS, Remarks, p. 51. I Fuller's Cburcb Hist. b. vii. p. 426.

manifested their disapprobation of the numerous popish ceremonies and superstitions still retained in the church. King Edward desired that the rites and ceremonies used under popery, should be purged out of the church, and that the English churches might be brought to the AposTolic Purity. Archbishop Cranmer was also very desirous to promote the same ;* and he is said to have drawn up a book of prayers incomparably more perfect than that which was then in use; but he was connected with-so wicked a clergy and convocation, it could not take place + And the king in his diary laments, that he could not restore the primitive discipline according to his heart's desire, because several of the bishops, some through age, some through ignorance, some on account of their ill name, and some out of love to popery, were opposed to the design.} Bishop Latimer complained of the stop put to the reformation, and urged the necessity of reviving the primitive discipline.^ 1 he professors of our two uersities, Peter Martyr and Martin lincer, both opposed the use of the clerical vestments. To Martyr the vestments were offensive, and he would not wear them. " When I was at Oxford," says he, " I would never use those white garments in the choir; and I was satisfied in what I did." He styled them mere relies of popery. Bucer giving his advice, said, " That as those garments had been abused to superstition, and were likely to become the subject of contention, they ought to be taken away by law ; and ecclesiastical discipline, and a more thorough reformation, set up. He disapproved of godfathers answering in the child's name. He recommended that pluralities and nonresidenccs might be abolished ; and that bishops might not be concerned in secular affairs, but take care of their dioceses, and govern them by the advice of their presbyters." The pious king was so much pleased w ith this advice, that '' he set himself to write upon a further reformation, and the necessity of church discipline."|| Bucer was displeased with various corruptions in the liturgy. " It cannot be expressed, how bitterly he bewailed, that, when the gospel began to spread in England, a greater regard was not had to discipline and purity of rites, in constituting tho

* Neal's Puritans, vol. i. p. 73.—Strype's Cranmer, p. 299.
+ Troubles at Frankcford, p. 48.

J King Edward's Remains, numb. 2. in Burnet, vol, ii.
§ Burnet's Hist, of Kefnr. vol. ii. p. 152.
U Ibid. vol. ii. p. 156—1S7.

churches."* He could never be prevailed upon to wear the surplice. And when he was asked why he did not wear the square cap? he replied, " Because my head is not square."+ The famous Dr. Thomas Sampson, afterwards one of the heads of the puritans, excepted against the habits at his ordination, who, nevertheless, was admitted by Cranmer and Ridley.£ But the celebrated John Rogers and Bishop Hooper, according to Fuller, were " the very ringleaders of the nonconformists. They renounced all ceremonies practised by the papists, conceiving (as he has expressed it) that such ought not only to be clipt with shears, but shaven with a razor; yea, all the stumps thereof pluckt out."^

The sad effects of retaining the popish habits in the church, began to appear at a very early period. In the year 1550, a debate arose, which to some may appear of small consequence; but, at this time, was considered of great importance to the reformation. The debate was occasioned by Dr. Hooper's nomination to the bishopric of Gloucester. Burnet denominates him a pious, zealous, and learned man. Fuller says, he was well skilled in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.! He was some time chaplain to the Duke of Somerset, and a famous preacher in the city of London ;i but declined the offered preferment for two reasons,—1. Because of the form of the oath, which he calls foul and impious. .And, 2. Because of the popish garments. The oath required him to swear by the saints, as well as by the name of God ; which Hooper thought impious, because the Searcher of Hearts alone ought to be appealed to in an oath. The young king being convinced of this, struck out the words with his own pen.*" But the scruples about the habits were not so easily got over. The king and council were inclined to dispense with them, as his majesty openly signified in the above letter to Cranmer: but Cranmer and Ridley were of another

* FIcytin's Hist, of Refor. p. 65. + Strype's Parker, Appen. p. 41, i Strypp's Cranmer, p. 192. § Church Hist. b. vii. p. 402.

|| Burnet's Itefor. vol. iii. p. 199.—Fuller's Church Hist. b. vii. p. 402, 403.—King Edward, in his letter of nomination to Cranmer, dated Aug. 5, 1550, writes thus : " We, by the advice of our council, have called and chosen our right well-beloved and well-worthy Mr. John Hooper, professor of divinity, to be our Bishop of Gloucester; as well for his learning, deep judgment, and long study, both in the scriptures, and profane learning; as also for his good discretion, ready utterance, iind honest life for that kind of vocation."—Ibi/I.

X Strype's Cranmer, p. 211.

* « Burnet's Hist, of Kefor. vol. iii. p. 203.

mind, and refused their allowance. Ridley was therefore nominated to a deputation with Hooper, with a view to bring him to a compliance ; but this proved ineffectual. Hooper still remained unconvinced, and prayed to be excused from the old symbolizing popish garments. These garments, he observed, had no countenance in scripture or primitive antiquity : they were the inventions of antichrist, and introduced into the church in the most corrupt ages : they had been abused to idolatry, particularly in the pompous celebration of the mass : and to continue the use of them, was, in his opinion, to symbolize with antichrist, to mislead the people, and inconsistent with the simplicity of the christian religion.* He could appeal to the Searcher of Hearts, that it was not obstinacy, but the convictions

ments.t

Ridley's endeavours proving unsuccessful, Hooper was committed to the management of Cranmer, who, being unable to bring him to conformity, laid the affair before the council, and he was committed to the Fleet. Having remained in prison for several months, the matter was compromised, when he was released and consecrated.i He consented to put on the vestments at his consecration, when he preached before the king, and in his own cathedral; but was suffered to dispense with them at other times.§ How this business was adjusted, and with what degree of severity he was persecuted, is related by Mr. Fox, in the Latin edition of his '< Acts and Monuments of the Martyrs." The passage, says Mr. Peirce, he hath left out in all his English editions, out of too great tenderness to the party. " Thus," says Mr. Fox, ended this theological quarrel in the victory of the bishops, Hooper being forced to recant; or, to say the least, being constrained to appear once in public, attired afler the manner of the bishops. Which, unless he had done, there are those who think the bishops would have endeavoured to take away his life : for his servant told me," adds the martyrologist, " that the Duke of Suffolk sent such word to Hooper, who was not himself ignorant of what they were doing."} Horrid barbarity! Who, before Hooper, was ever thrown into prison, and in danger of his life, merely

• Neal's Puritans, vol. i. p. 6S. + Fuller's Church Hist*, b. vii. p. 404. J Strype's Cranmer, p. 211—215—Baker's MS. Collec vol. xviii.p.269. ^ Burnet's Hist, of Refor. vol. ii.p. 166. C Peirce's Vimjicatjon, part i. p. 30.

of his conscience

because he refused a bishopric ? It was certainly some kind of excuse, that the bishops would not consecrate him contrary to law ; but there can be no excuse for his imprisonment, and their conspiring to take away his life. When Hooper wished to he excused accepting the offered preferment upon the conditions of the ecclesiastical establishment, was there any law to constrain him, contrary to the convictions of his own conscience.' Ridley, however, who was by far the most severe against Hooper, lived to change his opinions, as will appear hereafter.

Most of the reforming clergy were of Hooper's sentiments in this controversy. Several who had submitted to the habits in the late reign, now laid them aside: among whom were Bishops Latimer and Coverdale, Dr. Rowland Taylor, John Rogers, John Bradford, and John Philpot, all zealous nonconformists. They declaimed against them as mere popish and superstitious attire, and not fit for the ministers of the gospel.* Indeed, they were not so much, as pressed upon the clergy in general, but mostly left as matters of indifference. +

During this reign, certain persons denominated anabaptists, having fled from the wars in Germany, and come to England, propagated their sentiments and made proselytes in ihis country. Complaints being brought against them to the council, Archbishop Cranmer, with several of the bishops and others, received a commission, April 12, 1550, " to examine and search after all anabaptists, heretics, or contemners of the common prayer." As they were able to discover such persons, they were to endeavour to reclaim them, and, after penance, to give them absolution; but all who continued obstinate, were to be excommunicated, imprisoned, and delivered over to the secular power. Several tradesmen in London being convened before the commissioners, abjured; but Joan Bocher, or Joan of Kent, was made a public example. She steadfastly maintained, " That Christ was not truly incarnate of the virgin, whose flesh being sinful, he could not partake of it; but the word, by the consent of the inward man of the virgin, took flesh of her."j These were her own words; not capable of doing much mischief, and, surely, undeserving any severe punishment. The poor woman could not reconcile the spotless purity of

• MS. Chronology, vol. I. p. 35. (30.)

+ Burnet's Hilt, of Refor. vol. iii. p. 310, 311.

} Burnet's Hitt. of Refor. vol. ii. Collec. p. 168.

Christ's human nature, with his receiving flesh from a sinful creature; for which she was declared an obstinate heretic, and delivered over to the secular power to be burnt. The compassionate young king thought, that burning persons for their religious opinions savoured too much of that for which they censured the papists; therefore, when he could not prevail upon himself to sign the warrant for her execution, Cranmer, with his superior learning, was employed to persuade him. He argued from the practice of the Jewish church in stoning blasphemers; which silenced, rather than satisfied the king. He still looked upon it as cruel severity. And when at last he yielded to the archbishop's importunity, he told him, with tears in his eyes, " That if he did wrong, since it was in submission to his authority, he should answer for it to God." This is said to have struck the archbishop with much horror; yet he suffered the sentence to be executed.*

Besides those denominated anabaptists, there were also many others who administered the sacraments in other manner thfin was prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer. To prevent the number of these nonconformists from increasing, and to crush all who bad already imbibed their sentiments, another commission was issued, empowering the archbishop and others to correct and punish them.t And in the year 1352, Cranmer and others received a third commission from the council, to examine a certain sect newly sprang up in Kent.} This was a sect of nonconformists, though their peculiar sentiments do not appear. Mr. Fox, in the Latin edition of his " Martyrs," observes, " That one Humphrey Middleton,^ with some others, had been kept prisoners in the last year of King Edward by the archbishop, and had been dreadfully teazed by him and the rest in commission, and were now just upon the point of being condemned ; when in open court he said : [Veil, reverend Sir, pass what sentence you think JU upon

» Burnet's Hi>.t. of Refor. vol. ii. p. Ill, 112.—This female sufTi-rer, according to Mr. Strype, " was a great reader of the scriptures, and formerly a great di^perser of Tindal's New Testament; wliirh book she dispersed in the court, and so became acquainted with certain women of quality. She used, for the greater secrecy, to tie the books with string« under her apparel, and so pass with them into the court." Thus she exposed her owu life, in dangerous times, to bring others to a know ledge of God's holy word. — Strype s Eccl. Mtmoriah, vol. ii. p. 214.

+ Strype's Parker, p. 27. t Strype's Cranmer, p. 291.

^ This person, a native of Ashford, in Kent, was afterwards burnt in the days of Queen Mary.—Fox's Martyrs, vol. iii.p . 313,

us ; but that you may not say you were not forewarned, I testify that your own turn will be next. And accordingly it came to pass; for a little while after, King Edward died, when the prisoners were set at liberty, and the archbishop and bishops cast into prison."* The above severities, shewing the imperfect state of the English reformation, will Ik; handed down to posterity, as monuments of lasting reproach to our famous reformers. Persecution, whoever may be the persecutors, deserves ever to appear in all its detestable and shocking features.

In the year 1553, upon the death of King Edward, his sister Mary coming to the crown, soon overturned the reformation, and restored the whole body of popery. The queen was a violent papist; yet she at first declared, " That though her conscience was settled in matters of religion, she was resolved not to compel others, only by the preaching of the word."+ How tiir her majesty adhered to this sacred maxim, the numerous tragic scenes of her bloody reign, afford too strong a proof. She, within the same month, prohibited all preaching without her special license; and further declared, " That she would not compel her subjects to be of her religion, till public order should be taken."t This was a clear intimation of the approaching storm. Many of the principal reformers were immediately cast iuto prison. Hooper was sent to the Fleet, and Cranmcr and Latimer to the Tower, and above a thousand persons retired into foreign parts :§ among whom were five bishops, five deans, four archdeacons, and a great number of doctors in divinity, and celebrated preachers. In the number of worthy exiles were Coverdale, Turner, Sampson, Whitehead, Becon, Lever, Whittingham, and Fox, all afterwards famous in the days of Queen Elizabeth.|| The two archbishops and most of the bishops were deprived of their sees. The most celebrated preachers in London were put under confinement, and no less than 12,000 of the clergy, for being married, were turned out of their livings; some of whom were deprived without conviction ; some were never cited to appear; and many, being confined in prison, and unable to appear, were cited and deprived for non-appearance. In the mean time, the service and reformation of King Edward were abolished, and the old popish worship and ceremonies revived.!

* Peirce's Vindication, part i. p. 35.

+ Burnet's Hist, of Refor. vol. ii. p. 245. % Ibid. % Ibid. p. 247, 250. |j Strype's Cranmer, p. 314. f Burnet's Hist, of Refor. vol. ii. p. 276.

During this queen's reign, several hundred persons suffered death under the foul charge of heresy ;* among whom were great numbers of pious and learned divines, all zealous for the reformation. Many of these divines being avowed nonconformists in the reign of King Edward, maintained their principles even at the stake. Mr. John Rogers, the protomartyr, peremptorily refused to wear the habits, unless the popish priests were enjoined to wear upon their sleeves, as a mark of distinction, a chahce with an host. The same may be observed of Mr. John Philpot and Mr. Tyms, two other eminent martyrs.+ Bishop Latimer derided the garments ; and when they pulled off the surplice at his degradation, he said, Now I can make no more holy water. In the articles against Bishop Farrar, it was objected, that he had vowed never to wear the cap, but that he came into his cathedral in his long gown and hat; which he did not deny, alleging that he did it to avoid superstition, and giving offence to the people.% When the popish vestments were put upon Dr. Taylor, at his degradation, he walked about with his hands by his sides, saying, " How say you, my lord, am I not a godly fool? How say you, my masters, if I were in Cheapside, should I not have boys enough to laugh at these apish toys and toying trumpery .*" And it is observed, that when the surplice was pulled off, he said, Now I am rid of a fool's coat.S The famous John Bradford excepted against the habits, and was ordained without them; and even Cranmer and Ridley, who, in the late reign had exercised great severity against Hooper and others, lived to see their

clothed in the habits, at his degradation, said, " All this needeth not. I had myself done with this years ago."j Ridley, when he refused to put on the surplice at his degradation, and they put it on by force, " vehemently inveighed against it, calling it foolish and abominable, and too fond for a vice in a play.y\ And even during his confinement in prison, he wrote to Hooper, saying, " That

* Burnet reckon? the number of those who suffered in the flames to be 284; and Mr. Strype, S88; hut it is said there were no less than 800, during Wueen Mary's bloody persecution.—Ibid. p. 864.—Strype'i EccU Mem. vol. iii. Appen. p. 891.

+ Devlin's Hist, of Rei'or. part i. p. 9S.

\ Fox's Martyrs, vol. iii. p. 168, 172. S Ibid- P- 143.

|| It is observed thai both Cranmer and Ridley intended 10 have procured an act for abolishing the habits, but were prevented.—Peirce's Vindication, part i. p. 44.

S Fox's Martyrs, vol. iii. p. 427.

Cranmer being he was entirely knit to him, though in some circumstances of religion they had formerly jarred a little; wherein it was Hooper's wisdom, and his own simplicity, which had made the difference."*

All the severe persecution in this queen's reign, did not extinguish the light of the English reformation. Great numbers were driven, indeed, into exile, and multitudes suffered in the flames, yet many, who loved the gospel more than their lives, were enabled to endure the storm. Congregations were formed in various parts of the kingdom. There was a considerable congregation of these excellent christians, at Stoke, in Suffolk; with whom, on account of their number and unanimity, the bishops were for some time afraid to interfere. They constantly attended their private meetings, and never went to the parish church. An order was at length sent to the whole society, requiring them to receive the popish sacrament, or abide by the consequences. But the good people having assembled for the purpose of consultation, unanimously resolved not to comply. In about six months, the Bishop of Norwich sent his officers, strictly charging them to go to church on the following Lord's day, or, in case of failure, to appear before the commissary to give an account of their conduct. But having notice of this, they kept out of the way to avoid the summons. When they neither went to church, nor appeared before the commissary, the angry prelate suspended and excommunicated the whole congregation. And when officers were appointed to apprehend them, they left the town, and so escaped all the days of Queen Mary.t

The most considerable of these congregations, was that which met in and about London. Owing to the vigilance of their enemies, these people were obliged to assemble with the utmost secrecy ; and though there were about 200 members, they remained for a considerable time undiscovered. Their meetings were held alternately in Aldgate, in Blackfriars, in Pudding-lane, in Thames-street, and in ships upon the river. Sometimes they assembled in the villages about London, especially at Islington, that they might the more easily elude the bishops' officers. To

* Prince's Chron. Hist. vol. i. p. 217.—Bishop Ridley was a famous disputant against the papists. lie forced them to acknowledge, that Christ in bis last sapper, held himself in his hand, and afterwards cat himself.—Granger's Biog. Hist. vol. i. p. 159.

t Clark's Martyrologle, p. 515.

screen themselves from the notice of their persecntors, they often met in the night, and experienced many wonderful providential deliverances.* Their public devotions were conducted by the following ministers : Edmund Scambler, afterwards successively Bishop of Peterborough and Norwich, Mr. Fowler, Mr. John Rough, Mr. Augustine Birnher, Thomas Bentham, afterwards Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and Mr. John Pullain, afterwards an excellent puritan. +

During Mr. Rough's ministry among these people, he was apprehended, with Mr. Cuthbert Syinpson and some others, at a house in Islington, where the church was about to assemble for prayer and preaching the word : and being taken before the council, after several examinations, he was sent to Newgate, and his case committed to the management of Bonner. The character of this prelate, whose hands were so deeply stained with innocent blood, needs no colouring in this place: the faithful pages of history will always hold it up to the execration of mankind. In his hands, Mr. Rough met with the most relentless cruelty. Not content with degrading him, and delivering him over to the secular power, the furious prelate flew upon him, and plucked the beard from his face. And, at length, after much cruel usage, he ended his life in the flames, in December, 1557.{ Mr. Sympson, who was deacon of the church, was a pious, faithful, and zealous man, labouring incessantly to preserve the flock from the errors of popery, and to secure them from the dangers of persecution. At the time of his apprehension, the whole church was, indeed, in the utmost danger. It was Mr. Sympson's office to keep a book, containing the names of all the persons belonging to the congregation, which book he always carried to their private assemblies. But it was so ordered, by the good

* On one of these nocturnal occasions, being assembled in a house, by the side of the river, in Thames-street, they were discovered ; and the house was so guarded, that their enemies were sure none cnuld escape. But among them was a worthy mariner, who, seeing no other way of deliverance, got out at a back door; and swimming to a boat in the river, brought it; and having received all the good people into it, he made oars of his shoes, and couveyed them all away in safety. — Clark'i Martyrologie, p. 515, 616. t Ibid.—Strype's Annals, vol. i. p. 292.

J Fox's Martyrs, vol. iii. p. 722, 726. — Mr. Rough had been a celebrated preacher in Scotland, and also in England, in the reign of Edward VI. A sermon which he delivered in the pari li church of St. Andrew, was made a great blessing to the celebrated Mr. John Knox, and proved the means of bringing him forth to engage in his public ministry.—Biog. Britan. vol. iv. p. 2865, Edit. 1747.

[irovidence of God, that on the day of Iris apprehension, le left it with Mrs. Rough, the minister's wife.* Two or three days after this, he was sent to the Tower. During his confinement, because he would not discover the book, nor the names of the persons, he was cruelly racked three several times; and an arrow was tied between his two forelingers, and drawn out so violently as to cause the blood to gush forth ; but all was without etfect. He was then committed to Bonner, who bore this testimony concerning him before a number of spectators: " You see what a personable man this is ; and for his patience, if he were not an heretic, 1 should much commend him. For he has been thrice racked in one day, and, in my house, he hath endured some sorrow; and yet I never saw his patience once moved." The relentless prelate, nevertheless, condemned him, ordering him first into the stocks in his coal-house, and from thence to Smithfield; where with Mr. Fox and Mr. Davcnish, two others of the church taken at Islington, he ended his lite in the flames. + Seven more of this church were burnt in Smithfield, six at Brentford, and others died in prison.t

The numerous divines who fled from the persecution of Queen Mary, retired to Frankfort, Strasburgh, Zurich, Basil, Geneva, and other places; but they were most numerous at Frankfort. At this place it was, that a contest and division commenced, which gave rise to the Puritans, and to that Separation from the church of England which continues to this day. The exiles were in no place so happily settled as at Frankfort; where the senate gave them the use of a church, on condition that they should not vary from the French reformed church, either in doctrine or ceremonies. According to these conditions, they drew up a new liturgy, more agreeable to those of the tbreign churches, omitting the responses and the litany, with many trifling ceremonies in the English prayer book, and declined the use of the surplice. They took possession

• A few nights before this, Mr. Rough had a remarkable dream. He thought he saw Mr. Sympson taken by two of tbe guard, and with the book above-mentioned. This giving him much trouble, he awoke, and related the dream to his wife. Afterwards, falling asleep, he again dreamt the same thing. Upon his awaking tbe second time, he determined to go immediately to Mr. Sympson, and put him upon his guard; but while he was getting ready, Mr. Sympson came to his bouse with the book, which he deposited with Mrs. Rough, as above related.—Fox, vol. iii. p. 726.

+ Ibid. p. 726, 729.—Clark's Martyrologie, p. 497.

% Fox's Martyrs, vol. iii, p. 732, 734.

of the church, July 29, 1554; and having chosen a temporary minister and deacons, they sent to their brethren, who had fled to other places, inviting them to Frankfort, where they might hear God's word truly preached, the sacraments duly administered, and the requisite christian discipline properly exercised: privileges which could not be obtained in their own country.4 The members of the congregation sent for Mr. John Knox from Geneva, Mr. James Haddon from Strasburgh, and Mr. Thomas Lever from Zurich, requesting them to take the oversight of them in the Lord.

The church at Frankfort being thus comfortably settled with pastors, deacons, and a liturgy, according to its own choice; Dr. Richard Cox, a man of a high spirit, coming to that city, with some of his friends, broke through the conditions of the new-formed church, and interrupted the public service by answering aloud after the minister. On the Lord's day following, one of the company, equally officious as himself, ascended the pulpit, and read the whole litany. Mr. Knox, upon this, taxed the authors of this disorder with a breach of the terms of their common agreement, and affirmed, that some things in the Book of Common Prayer were superstitious and impure. Dr. Cox reproved him for his censoriousness ; and being admitted, with the rest of his company, to vote in the congregation, obtained a majority, prohibiting Mr. Knox from preaching any more.t But Mr. Knox's friends applied

the French church both in doctrine and ceremonies, according to their original agreement. Dr. Cox and his party finding Knox's interest among the magistrates too strong, had recourse to an unworthy and unchristian method to get rid of him. This divine having published a book, while he was in England, entitled " An Admonition to Christians," in which he had said, " That the emperor was no less an enemy to Christ than Nero," these overbearing fellowexiles basely availed themselves of this and some other expressions in the book, and accused him of high treason

ot the emperor's honour, and unwilling to embroil themselves in these controversies, desired Mr. Knox, in a respectful manner, to depart from the city. So he left the place, March 25, 1555.

commanded them to unite with

inst the

fpon this, the senate being tender „ i :n: i ii Ai

* Troubles at Frankeford, p. 1—3.

+ Cox and his friends were admitted to vote in the congregation, through the particular solicitations of Mr. Kaox.—Ibid. p. 33.

Upon Mr. Knox's departure, Cox's party having strengthened themselves by the addition of other exiles, petitioned the magistrates for the free use of King Edward's servicebook ; which they were pleased to grant. The old congregation was thus broken up by Dr. Cox and his friends, who now carried all before them. They chose new churchofficers, taking no notice of the old ones, and set up the service-book without interruption. Among those who were d/iven from the peaceable and happy congregation, were Knox, Gilby, Goodman, Cole, Whittingham, and Fox, all celebrated nonconformists in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.* From the above account, it will sufficiently appear who were the aggressors. Bishop Burnet, with great injustice, says, " That Knox and his party certainly began the breach."+

Towards the close of this queen's unhappy reign, her government having sustained many losses, her spirits failed, her health declined, and, being seized with the dropsy, she died November 17, 1558, in the forty-third year of her age, having reigned a little more than five years and four months. Queen Mary was a princess of severe principles, and being wholly under the controul of her clergy, was ever forward to sanction all their cruelties. Her conscience was under the absolute direction of the pope and her confessor ; who, to encourage her in the extirpation of heresy, and in all the cruelties inflicted upon protestants, gave her assurance, that she was doing God service. She was naturally of a melancholy and peevish temper; and her death was lamented only by her popish clergy.J Her reign was in every respect calamitous to the nation, and will be transmitted to posterity in characters of blood.

Sect. II.

From the Death of Queen Mary, to the Death of Queen Elizabeth.

The accession of Queen Elizabeth to the crown, gave new life to the Reformation. The news had no sooner reached the continent, than most of the worthy exiles with joy returned home; and those who had concealed themselves, during the late storm, came forth as men restored from the

» Troubles at Frankeford, p. 1—&c.

+ Hut. of Rcfor. vol. ii. p. 339. J Ibid. p. 369—371.

C

dead.* By the queen's royal proclamation, the public worship of God remained some time without alteration. All preaching was prohibited; and the people were charged to hear only the epistles and gospels for the day, the ten commandments, the litany, the Lord's prayer, and the creed, in English. No other prayers were to be read, nor other forms of worship to be observed, than those already appointed by law, till the meeting of parliament.t

The parliament being assembled, the two famous acts, entitled " The Act of Supremacy,"t and " The Act of Uniformity of Common Prayer," were passed. The former

gave rise to a new ecclesiastical court, called The Court of tiGH Commission, which, by the exercise of its unlimited power and authority, became the engine of inconceivable oppression to multitudes of the queen s best subjects. The latter attempted, indeed, to establish a perfect uniformity in public worship, but it could never be effected.^ During the whole of this reign, many of the best divines and others, were dissatisfied with the Book of Common Prayer, and with the rigorous imposition of it in divine worship. Some things contained in the book, they considered to be erroneous; others superstitious; and the greater part to be derived from the corrupt fountain of popery, and, therefore, could not with a good conscience observe the whole; on which account, they were treated by the prelates with the utmost severity. The principal debate in the first parliament of this queen's reign, was not whether popery or protestantism should be established; but whether they should carry on the reformation, so happily begun in the days of King Edward, to a greater degree of perfection, and abolish all the remains of superstition, idolatry, and

* It is observed, that when the exiles and others came forwards in public, a certain gentleman made suit to the queen, in behalf of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, who had long been imprisoned in a Latin translation, that they also might be restored to liberty, and walk abroad as formerly in the English tongue. To this petition her majesty immediately replied, " That he should nrst know the minds of the prisoners, who perhaps desired no such liberty as he requested." — Hcylin's Hist, of Refor. p. 275.

+ Burnet's Hist, of Refor. vol. ii. p. 378.—Strype's Annals, vol. I. p. 41—44. J Ibid. p. 69.

(j This act was designed to establish a perfect and uersal conformity, among the laity, as well as the clergy. It required " all persons diligently and faithfully, having no lawful or reasonable excuse, to resort to their parish church, every Sunday and all holidays, on pain of punishment by the censurei of the church, and also on pain of forfeiting tteeloe-pence (or every such offence, to be levied by way of distress."—Burn's £cc(. Latef vol. ii. p. 145. Edit. 1775.

popish innovations, which being still retained in the church, were stumbling blocks to many worthy subjects.*

In the year 1559, the queen published her Injunctions.

manded all her loving subjects obediently to receive, and truly to observe and keep them, according to their offices, degrees and estates, upon pain of suspension, deprivation, excommunication, and such other censures as to those who had ecclesiastical jurisdiction under her majesty, should seem meet.t Though in these injunctions the queen manifested some disapprobation of the Romish superstitions and idolatry, she was much inclined to retain images in churches, and thought they were useful in exciting devotion, and in drawing people to public worship. Her object was to unite the papists and protestants together.} She still retained a crucifix upon the altar, with lights burning before it, in her own chapel, when three bishops officiated, all in rich copes, before the > idol.^ Instead of stripping religion of the numerous, pompous ceremonies with which it was incumbered, she was inclined rather to keep it as near as possible to the Romish ritual: and even some years after her accession, one of her chaplains having preached in defence of the real presence, she presented her public thanks to him, for his pains and pielj/4 She spoke with great bitterness against the marriage of the clergy, and repented having made married persons bishops.i Her majesty having appointed a committee of divines to review King Edward's liturgy, she commanded them to strike out all passages offensive to the pope, and to make the people easy about the corporeal presence of Christ in the sacrament.** The liturgy was, therefore, exceedingly well fitted to the approbation of the papists.tt The queen commanded, that the Lord's table should be placed in the form of an altar; that reverence should be made at the name of Jesus; that music should be retained in the churches; and that all the festivals should be observed as in times of popery.}t The reformation of King Edward, therefore, instead of being carried forwards and perfected, was, according to Burnet, removed considerably backwards, partly

* MS. Remarks, p. 463. + Sparrow's Collec. p. 65—86. % Burnet's Hist, of Refor. vol. ii. p. 897. S lt>id- vo1- >>'- P- 292' I Heylin's Hist, of Refor. p. 124. Edit. 1670.

* Strype's Parker, p. 109.

»» Burnet's Hist, of Refor. vol. ii. p. 392.

+ + Heylin's Hist, of Pres. p. 259.

»t Heylin's Hist, of Refor. p. 283. Edit. 1674.

from the queen's love of outward magnificence in religion, and partly in compliance with the papists.*

Many of our excellent reformers who had espoused the cause of nonconformity, in the days of King Edward, retained their principles, and acted upon them, during their exile in a foreign land, especially those who being driven from Frankfort, settled at Geneva and other places. Nor did they forget their principles upon the accession of

best reformed churches in Europe, they examined more minutely the grand principles of the reformation, and returned home richly fraught with wisdom and knowledge. They wished to have the church purged of all its antichristian errors and superstitions, and to have its discipline, its government, and its ceremonies, as well as its doctrine, regulated by the standard of holy scripture. On the contrary, many of the bishops and clergy being too well affected to popery, opposed a thorough reformation, accounting that of King Edward sufficient, or more than sufficient, for the present church of England. Therefore, so early as in the year mentioned above, there were many warm debates betwixt the two contending parties, t

In addition to the oath of supremacy, a compliance with the act of uniformity, and an exact observance of the queen's injunctions, a public creed was drawn up by the bishops, entitled " A Declaration of certain principal Articles of Religion," which all clergymen were obliged to read publicly at their entrance upon their cures. These were, at this time, the terms of ministerial conformity. There was no dispute among the reformers, about the first and last of these qualifications, but they differed in some points about the other two. Many of the learned exiles and others, could not, with a good conscience, accept of livings according to the act of uniformity and the queen's injunctions. If the popish garments and ceremonies had been left indifferent, and some liberties allowed in the use of the common prayer, the contentions and divisions which afterwards followed, would no doubt have been prevented. But as the case then stood, it was almost miraculous that the reformation did not fall back to popery; and if some of the nonconforming divines had not in part complied, in hopes of the removal of these grievances at some future period, that would most probably have been the unhappy

• Burnet's Hist, of Refor. vol. iii. p. 305.

t Ibid. vol. ii. p. 407—Baker's MS. Collec. vol. xzvii. p. 387.

several years among the consequence. Many churches were for a considerable time without ministers, and not a few mechanics, and persons altogether unlearned, were preferred, which brought much reproach upon the prolestant cause; while others of the first rank for learning, piety and usefulness, were laid aside in silence. There was, indeed, very little preaching through the whole country.* The Bishop of Bangor writes, during this year, " that he had only two preachers in all his diocese."t Indeed the bishops in general were not insensible of the calamity; but instead of opening the door a little wider, for the allowance of the more conscientious and zealous reformers, they admitted the meanest and most illiterate, who would come up to the terms of conformity.} And even at this early period, there were many of the clergy, who, though preferred to benefices, could not conform, but refused to observe the public service, and to wear the holy

Sirments; at which the queen was exceedingly offended.§ r. Matthew Parker was this year consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury.

In the year 1562, sat the famous convocation, when " The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion," much the same as those of King Edward, were drawn up and subscribed by all the members then sitting, and required to be subscribed by all the clergy in the kingdom. The convocation proceeded next to consider the rites and ceremonies of the church, when Bishop Sandys presented a paper recommending the abolition of private baptism, and the crossing of the infant in the forehead, which, he said, was needless and •very superslilious.^ Another paper was, at the same time, presented to the house, with the following requests:— " That the psalms may be sung distinctly by the whole " congregation; and that organs may be laid aside.—That " none may baptize but ministers; and that they may leave " off the sign of the cross.—That in the administration of u the sacrament, the posture of kneeling may be left indif« ferent.—That the use of copes and surplices may be " taken away; so that all ministers in their ministry use a " grave, comely, and long garment, as they commonly do u in preaching.—That ministers be not compelled to wear " such gowns and caps, as the enemies of Christ's gospel " have chosen for the special array of their priesthood.— " That the words in the thirty-third article, concerning the

• Biog. Britan. vol. v. p. 3297. Edit. 1747. + MS. Register, p. 886. t Neal's Puritans, vol. i. p. 146.

S Strype's Parker, p. 106. || Strype's Annals, vol. i. p. 297.

u punishment of those who do not in all things conform to " the public order about ceremonies, may be mitigated.— " That all the saints' days, festivals, and holidays, bearing u the name of a creature, may be abrogated."—This paper was subscribed by one provost, five deans, twelve archdeacons, and fourteen proctors, many of whom were eminent for learning and ability; but their requests were rejected.*

In the above convocation, there was a great difference of sentiment among the learned reformers, which occasioned many warm debates upon points of great importance, especially upon this, " Whether it was most proper to .retain the outward appearance of things, as near as possible to what had been practised in times of popery." While the one party maintained the affirmative, the other asserted, that this outward resemblance of the Romish church, would encourage the people in their former practices, nourish in them the old root of popery, and make them a more easy prey to their popish adversaries. Therefore they recommended that every thing might be removed as far as possible from the church of Rome.t In the conclusion, the contrary party prevailed: and the bishops, conceiving themselves empowered by the canons of this convocation, began to exercise their authority by requiring the clergy ot their respective dioceses to subscribe to the liturgy, the ceremonies, and the discipline of the church; when such as refused, were branded with the odious name of Puritans. This was a term of reproach given them by their enemies, because they wished to serve and worship God with greater purity than was allowed and established in the church of England.} All were stigmatized by this name, who distinguished themselves in flic cause of religious liberty, and who could not in all points conform to the ecclesiastical establishment.

In the year 1564, Archbishop Parker, with the assistance of several of the bishops, published the Advertisements, with a view to secure a due conformity among ecclesiastical persons. By the first of these advertisements, all preachers throughout the province of Canterbury were at once disqualified ; and by the last, they were required to subscribe, and promise not to preach or expound the scriptures, without a license from the bishop, which could not be obtained

• Strype's Annals, p. 298. vol. ii. Addon, p. 15.
+ Burnet's Hist, of Refor. vol. iii. p. 302.
t Fuller's Church Hist. b. is. p. 76.

without a protestation and promise under their hand of an absolute conformity to the ceremonies. No less than eight protestations were also required to be made and subscribed by all who should be admitted to any oflice or cure in the church.* Though the archbishop and his brethren at first met with some difficulties in carrying them into effect, (the queen refusing to sanction them,) yet afterwards, presuming upon her majesty's favour, they succeeded according to their wishes.t Upon the approach of these severities, Mr. Whittingham wrote a long and pressing letter to the Earl of Leicester, warmly urging him to interpose with the queen, to hinder their execution. In the conclusion of this most pathetic epistle, he says, u I need not appeal to the word of God, to the history of the primitive church, and to the just judgments of God poured out upon the nations for lack of true reformation. Judge ye betwixt us and our enemies. And if we seek the glory of God alone, the enjoyment of true christian liberty, the overthrow of all idolatry and superstition, and to win souls to Christ; I beseech your honour to pity our case, and use your utmost endeavours to secure our liberty.''}

Many of the clergy in both the uersities, and in the country, but especially in the city of London, refused to wear the square cap, the tippet, and the surplice. " And it is marvellous," says Mr. Strype, '< how much these habits were abhorred by many honest, well-meaning men; who styled them antichristian ceremonies, and by no means fit to be used in a true christian church.'^ But Archbishop Parker and other high commissioners being resolved to reduce the church to one uniform order, cited many of the clergy before them, admonishing some, and threatening others. Among those who appeared, were Dr. Sampson, dean of Christ-church, Oxford, and Dr. Humphrey, president of Magdalen college, in the same uersity. They were divines of great renown throughout the kingdom, for learning, piety, and zeal for the reformation, but were cast into prison for nonconformity.|| The famous Mr. Whitehead, with several others, was cited at the same

• Sparrow's Collec. p. 123—128, + Strype's Parker, p. 151—161.

i See Art. Whittingham. ^ Strypc's Parker, p. 151.

|| It is proper here to observe, that throughout the Introduction, no authority will be given where the same things are treated more at large in the body of the work. Therefore, in order to examine the evidence of what the author has asserted, as well as a more circumstantial detail of facts, the reader, in all such instances, is directed to the respective articles.

time, and, refusing to subscribe, was immediately suspended. Mr. Becon, another celebrated reformer, being cited, and refusing to subscribe, was immediately sequestered and deprived. Mr. Allen was cited, and received the like censure. Many others were suspended and deprived, who, having wives and children, laboured under great poverty and want. Being driven from their ministerial employment, some, to procure a livelihood, betook themselves to trades, some to husbandry, and some went to sea.* The principal reasons of these and other learned divines now refusing conformity, were—1. Because those things which the prelates required, were unsupported by scripture and primitive antiquity.—2. They were not received by other reformed churches.—And, 3. They savoured very much of the errors and superstitions of popery.t On these grounds, they disapproved of some things in the Book of Common Prayer, and forbore the use of the habits and ceremonies.

In the year 1565, the archbishop and his brethren in commission, not content with exercising all their own authority to its fullest extent, sought the favourable assistance of the council, and enforced an exact conformity to the ecclesiastical establishment with still greater rigour. They convened the London ministers before them; and when they appeared in court, Mr. Robert Cole, a clergyman,* being placed by the side of the commissioners in priestly apparel, they were addressed in these words: —" My masters, and ye ministers of London, the council's pleasure is, that strictly ye keep the unity of apparel, like this man who stands here canonically habited with a square cap, a scholar's gown, priest-like, a tippet, and, in the church, a linen surplice. Ye that will subscribe, write Volo; those that will not subscribe, write Nolo. Be brief: make no words." When some of the ministers offered to speak, they were immediately interrupted with the command, " Peace, peace; and apparitor, call over the churches: ye masters, answer presently under the penalty of conlempt.,\ In the conclusion, sixty-one promised conformity, but thirty-seven absolutely refused, being, as the archbishop acknowledged, the best among them. These

* Strype's Grinda), p. 99. + MS. Remarks, p. 161.

t This Mr. Cole, for his subscription and conformity, was preferred by the archbishop to the beneSce of Bow and Allhallows, London.—Baktr'$ MS. Colltc. vol.xzvii. p. 387.

tj Strype'i Grindal, p. 98.—Annals, vol. i. p. 463.

-were immediately suspended, and told, that if they did not conform within three months, they should be deprived of all their spiritual promotions.* Among those who received the ecclesiastical censure, was Mr. Crowley, who was afterwards deprived and imprisoned. Mr. Brokelsby was sequestered, and afterwards deprived, being the first who was thus censured for refusing to wear the surplice. Dr. Turner, dean of Wells, was sequestered and deprived for refusing to wear the surplice, and to use the Book of Common Prayer. The venerable Miles Coverdale was driven from his flock, and obliged to relinquish his benefice. In consequence of these proceedings, many of the churches in London were shut up, for want of ministers. " This," says the archbishop," was no more than he foresaw before he began ; and that when the queen put him upon doing what he had done, he told her, that these precise folks," as in contempt he calls them, " would offer their goods and bodies to prison, rather than they would relent."+

Notwithstanding these proceedings, the nonconformists greatly multiplied, and they were much esteemed and countenanced by persons of quality and influence. God raised them up many friends in both houses of parliament, and in her majesty's privy council: as, the Earls of Bedford, Warwick, and Leicester, Sir Francis Knollys, Sir William Cecil, and many others. All these were the constant friends of the puritans, and used their power and influence to obtain a further reformation.} Though in the latter they utterly failed of success, they often protected the persecuted ministers, or procured their release from suspension, deprivation, and imprisonment.

The principal persons for learning and piety, in the uersity of Cambridge, not only opposed the above severities, but refused conformity. The fellows and scholars of St. John's college, to the number of nearly three hundred^ threw away their surplices with one consent; and many in other colleges followed their example.^ This, indeed, presently roused the zeal of the jealous archbishop. He looked upon Cambridge as becoming the very nursery of puritanism; and, therefore, to crush the evil in the bud, he warmly recommended the chancellor to enforce an exact conformity throughout that fountain of learning. In the mean time, the heads of colleges being dissatisfied with these proceedings, wrote a pressing letter to the chancellor,

* Strype's Parker, p. 911, 215. + Ibid. p. 225.

t MS. Remarks, p. Ill, 193. S Strype's Annals, vol. i. p. 441.

wishing him to put a stop to such severe measures. They observe that multitudes of pious and learned men thought in their consciences, that the use of the garments was utterly unlawful; and that the imposition of them upon all in the uersity, would compel these worthy persons to forsake the place, which would leave the uersity very destitute. Such an imposition of conformity, say they, will prove exceedingly detrimental to the preaching of the gospel, as well as to good learning.* The chancellor being a man of great prudence and circumspection, and loath to give offence by using severities, made some demur, with which the archbishop was displeased. Those who refused conformity reminded the chancellor, that they had cast away the ceremonies, not out of malice, for vain glory, an affection for popularity, contempt of laws, or any desire of innovation, but out of love to the truth. They could call the Searcher of Hearts to witness, that in what they had done, they had sought to enjoy peace of conscience, and the true worship of God. They prayed, therefore, that their consciences might not be brought into a state of most grievous bondage and exquisite torment, by being forced to observe the ceremonies. +

The proceedings of the prelates in censuring so many ministers of high reputation, was very afflictive to the foreign reformed churches. Therefore the famous Beza wrote a letter this year to Bishop Grindal, exposing the evils attending the imposition of conformity. He observes, that " if they do offend, who choose to leave their churches, rather than conform to rites and vestments against their consciences; a greater guilt is contracted by those who choose to spoil these flocks of able pastors, rather than suffer

choose to rob the people of the food of their souls, rather than suffer them to receive it otherwise than on their knees."$ He observes also, that this intended conformity designed u to admit again, not only those garments which are the signs of Baal's priests, but also certain rites, which are degenerated into the worst of superstitions: as the signing with the cross, kneeling at the communion, and such like."s The church of Scotland wrote, at the same time, a most

• Among those who subscribed this letter was even Dr. John Whitgift, afterwards the celebrated archbishop. This man was now a zealous friend of the nonconformists; but soon after as zealous a persecutor of them. —Strypc't Parker, p. 194. + Ibid. p. 192, 194,196.

those pastors to make

affectionate and pressing letter to the bishops and pastors of England, exposing the evil of persecution, and recommending peace among brethren. " We understand," say they, " that divers of our dearest brethren, among whom are some of the best learned in the realm, are deprived from the ecclesiastical function, and forbidden to preach, because their consciences will not suffer them to use such garments as idolaters in time of blindness, have used in their idolatry. We crave in the bowels of Jesus Christ, that christian charity may prevail among you. Ye cannot be ignorant how tender a thing the conscience of man is. If then the surplice, corner cap, and tippet, have been badges of idolatry, and used in the very act of idolatry, what hath the preacher of christian liberty, and the open rebuker of all superstition, to do with the dregs of that liomish beast ? Our brethren who of conscience refuse that unprofitable apparel, do neither condemn, nor molest you, who use such vain trifles. If you should do the like to them, we doubt not that you will please God, and comfort the hearts of many, which are wounded by the present extremities. Our humble supplication is, that our brethren among you, who refuse the Romish rags, may find such favour of you prelates, as your Head and Master commandeth every one of his members to shew to all others. We expect to receive your gentleness, not only because you fear to offend God's majesty, by troubling your brethren with such vain trifles ; but also because you will not refuse the humble request of us your brethren and fellowpreachers of Jesus Christ. We suppose you will esteem us to be of the number of those, who fight against the Romish antichrist, and travel for the advancement of the uersal kingdom of Jesus Christ; before whom, we, and you, and your brethren, must soon give an account."*

Many of the puritans having, for the sake of peace, conformed as far as they possibly could, at length endeavoured, though under great discouragements, to obtain an accommodation. But the prelates proceeding with still greater severity against all who could not come up to the standard of conformity, made it too evidently appear, that they sought not their conformity, but their utter extir

• This letter, dated Edinburg, Dec. 27, 1566, is entitled " The ministers and elders of the churches within the realme of Scotlande, to their brethren the bishops and pastours of Englande, who have renounced the Romane antichrist, and doe professe with them the Lord Jesus in sinceritie, desi^etb the pernetuall increase of the Holy Spirit."—Parte of a Register, p. 125 —127. '

pation. Having made application to certain persons of distinguished eminence, the business was laid before the parliament; and during this year, six bilk were brought into the house of commons, to promote a further reformation of the church. They were warmly supported by many eminent statesmen, and one of them passed the house ; but coming up to the lords, it met with some opposition ; and by the superior power and influence of the bishops, it was cast out.*

Through the heavy oppressions of the prelates, many of the puritans, both ministers and others, withdrew from the national church, and set up their separate assemblies. They laid aside the ecclesiastical ceremonies and the Book of Common Prayer, and worshipped God in a way which to them appeared more agreeable to the word of God. The reason assigned for their separation was, " that the ceremonies of antichrist were so tied to the service of God, that no one might preach, or administer the sacraments without them, being compelled to observe these things by law." If the use of the habits and certain ceremonies had been left discretionary, both ministers and people would no doubt have been easy. This being denied, they entered into a serious consultation, when they came to this conclusion: " That, since they could not have the word of God preached, nor the sacraments administered, without idolatrous gear; and since there had been a separate congregation in London, and another at Geneva, in Queen Mary's time, which used a book and order of preaching, administration of the sacraments and discipline, which the great Mr. Calvin approved of, and which was freed from the superstitions of the English service: that therefore it was their duty in their present circumstances, to break off from the public churches, and to assemble as they had opportunity in private houses, or elsewhere, to worship God in a manner that might not offend their consciences."+ This was about the year 1566, and was the aera of that SepaRation from the church of England which continues to this day.

The chief leaders of the separation were Messrs. Coleman, Button, HaUngham, Benson, and Hawkins, all, according to Fuller, active and zealous nonconformists, beneficed within the diocese of London.* Notwithstanding

• MS. Remarks, p. 463.

+ Parte of a Register, p. 25.—Strype's Parker, p. 241,842. t Fuller's Church Hist. b. iz. p. 81. *

the threatenings and severities of the prelates, they continued to meet in their private assemblies, as they found opportunity; and oftentimes assembled in the fields and the woods in the neighbourhood of London, to avoid the discovery of their watchful enemies.* But they ventured at length to appear more openly; and June 19, 1567, having agreed to have a sermon and the Lord's supper at Plumbershall in the city, they hired the place, as some one intimated, under pretence of a wedding. Here, the sheriffs and other officers discovered them, and broke up their meeting, when about one hundred were assembled; most of whom were taken into custody, and sent to Bridewell, the Compter, and other prisons. Having remained in prison nearly two

tried, twenty-four men and seven women were released by an order from the council.t

The puritans of these times had many objections against the established church. They complained of the assumed superiority of bishops above presbyters.—They excepted against the numerous, pompous titles of ecclesiastical officers.—They complained of the exorbitant power and jurisdiction of the prelates.—They lamented the want of sodly discipline.—They disliked some things in the public fiturgy: as, the frequent repetition of the Lord's prayer, the responses, some things in the office of marriage, the burial of the dead, &c.—They disliked the reading of the apocryphal books, to the exclusion of some parts of canonical scripture.—They disallowed of the cathedral mode of worship.—They disapproved of the church festivals or holidays, as having no foundation in scripture.—They disapproved of pluralities, nonresidence, and lay patrons.—Arid they scrupled conformity to certain rites and ceremonies : as, the cross in baptism; the promises and vows; the use of sponsors, to the exclusion of parents; the custom of confirming children ; kneeling at the Lord's supper; bowing at the name of Jesus; the ring in marriage; and the wearing of the surplice, with other ceremonies equally without foundation in scripture.} . During the above year, the puritans felt the oppressions of the ruling ecclesiastics. Mr. Evans was convened before them and prosecuted, for keeping conventicles. Mr. Lawrence, a Suffolk divine of great eminence, was suspended for nonconformity; and Dr. Hardyman suffered deprivation.

» Heylin's Hist, of Pres. p. 259. t Strype'« Grindal, p. 136.

t Neal's Puritans, vol. i. p. 209—213.

sufficiently Mr. Stroud, minister of Y aiding, in Kent, was cast into prison, excommunicated, deprived of his ministry, reduced to extreme poverty, and obliged to enter upon the employment of correcting the press for his support. Other puritans, denominated peaceable nonconformists, obtained for some time a conance or toleration. These were Drs. Sampson, Humphrey, Wyburn, Penny and Coverdale, with Messrs. Fox, Lever, and Johnson.*

Alxmt the year 1570, other oppressions were inflicted upon certain London ministers: Mr. Crane and Mr. Bonham were both silenced and cast into prison for nonconformity. The former was afterwards for the same crime committed to Newgate; where, after languishing a long time under the hardships of the prison, he was delivered by death from all his afflictions. Mr. Axton, an excellent divine, for refusing the apparel, the cross in baptism, and kneeling at the Lord's supper, was convened before the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and, after a long examination, was deprived and driven to seek his bread in a foreign land. The celebrated Mr. Cartwright, of Cambridge, was cited before Dr. Whitgift and others, when he was deprived of his public ministry, expelled from the uersity, and forced to depart out of the kingdom. Innumerable, indeed, were the hardships under which the puritans groaned. By the rigorous proceedings of the ruling prelates, the church was deprived of many of its brightest ornaments; and nearly all its faithful pastors were ejected; especially in Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Norfolk, and Suffolk.t While these ravages were made upon the church of Christ, several thousands of ministers of inferior character, such as common swearers, drunkards, gamesters, whoremongers, and massing priests, only because they were conformable, continued in their offices, enjoyed their livings, and obtained preferment. Most of the bishops having endured persecution and banishment in the days of Queen Mary,

forgot their former condition, and persecuted their brethren of the same faith, who could not come up to the standard of conformity.}

At this period, there was considerable variety in the kind of bread used in the Lord's supper: some ministers, in conformity to the papists and the queen's injunctions, used the wafer bread ; but others, in conformity to scripture

• Strype's Parker, p. 243. t MS. Register, p. 147.

J Parte of a Register, p. 2—9.

and the convictions of their own minds, renounced the popish relict, and used the loaf bread. This gave great offence and much trouble to Archbishop Parker, who, with the assistance of Bishop Grindal, laboured much to bring all the clergy to an exact uniformity.*

The above proceedings having excited considerable alarm in the nation, some attempts were made in the parliament of 1571, to obtain a reformation of the ecclesiastical laws. The motion was warmly supported by some of the ablest statesmen ; but was no sooner become the subject of public discussion, than the queen took great offence, and forbad the house to concern itself about such matters.t The commons ventured, however, to present a supplication to her majesty, in which they observe, that for want of true ecclesiastical discipline, there were great numbers of ministers of infamous lives, while those possessed of abilities for the sacred function were cast aside as useless. They complain of the great increase of popery, atheism and licentiousness, by which the protestant religion was in imminent danger. " And," say they, " being moved with pily towards so many thousands of your majesty's subjects, daily in danger of being lost for want of the food of the word, and true discipline; we, the commons in this present parliament assembled, are humbly bold to open the griefs, and to seek the salving of the sores of our country; and to beseech your majesty, seeing the same is of so great importance, that the parliament at this time may be so long continued, as that by good and godly laws, provision may be made for a reformation of these great and grievous wants and abuses, and by such other means as to your majesty shall seem meet, a perfect redress of the same may be obtained; by which the number of your majesty's faithful subjects will be increased, popery will be destroyed, the glory of God will be promoted, and your majesty's renown will be recommended to all posterity."t But the queen broke up the parliament without taking the least notice of the supplication.

These proceedings occasioned an act to pass during this parliament, requiring all ministers " to declare their assent to all the articles of religion, which only concern the confession of the true christian faith, and the doctrine of the sacraments." This was a great alleviation to the non

• Strype's Parker, p. 308—310.

+ D. Ewes's Journal, p. 157, 18S.—Strype's Parker, p. 334. % MS. Register, p. 92, 93.

conformists, when they all readily subscribed. But the bishops and clergy in convocation had the confidence, at the same time, to make new canons of discipline, by which they greatly increased the burdens of the puritans. They required subscription to all the articles, even those relating to the rites, ceremonies, order and policy of the church, as well as Others, contrary to the above statute. The bishops called in all their licenses to preach, forbidding all ministers to preach without new ones. Most of the nonconformists claiming the liberty allowed them by the laws of the land, refused the canonical subscription, as a most grievous usurpation over their consciences ; for which great numbers were turned out of their livings.* This led them to preach in other churches, or in private houses, without license, as they were able to procure an opportunity. But the queen hearing of this, immediately commanded the archbishop and other ecclesiastical commissioners not to suffer any minister to read, pray, preach, or administer either of the sacraments, in any church, chapel, or private place, without a license from her majesty, the archbishop, or the bishop of the diocese. t

These tyrannical measures, instead of bringing the puritans nearer the standard of conformity, drove them farther from the church. They could not with a good conscience, observe the new ecclesiastical impositions; and, therefore, the chief among them were cited to appear at Lambeth; t among whom were Drs. Sampson and Wyburn, and Messrs. Goodman, Lever, Walker, Goff, Deering, Field, Brown, and Johnson. These divines were ready to subscribe to the doctrines of faith and the sacraments, according to law, but excused themselves from doing more. Goodman was suspended, and constrained to sign a recantation. Lever quietly resigned his prebend in the church of Durham. Deering was long molested and suspended. J ohnson suffered similar treatment. Dr. Willoughby was deprived for refusing the above canonical subscription.^ Mr. Gilby and Mr. Whittingham endured many troubles for their nonconformity.

These proceedings opened the eyes of the people ; and the parliament in 1572, warmly espoused the cause of the distressed ministers. The queen and bishops having most shamefully abused their pretended spiritual power, two

hardships under which the puritans groaned, were intended to be redressed.» The bills passed smoothly through the commons, and were referred to a committee of both houses; which so alarmed the bishops, and gave such offence to the queen, that, two days after, she acquainted the commons, that it was her royal pleasure, that no bill relating to religion should henceforth be introduced into that house, till after the same had been considered and approved by the clergy; and she commanded the house to deliver up the two bills last read, touching rites and ceremonies.+ With this high stretch of her majesty's prerogative, the commons quietly and tamely complied, and their efforts came to nothing.

In the mean time, the bishops stuck close to the canonical discipline; enforced conformity with the utmost rigour; and, according to the computation of Mr. Strype,} there were at least one hundred ministers deprived this year, for refusing subscription. The uersity of Cambridge was, indeed, become a nest of puritans. Dr. Browning and Mr. Brown, both fellows of Trinity college, were convened before the heads, and cast into prison for nonconformity. Mr. Clarke, fellow of Peter-house, and Mr. Millain, fellow of Christ's college, were expelled from their colleges, and banished from the uersity.^ But these severe proceedings had not the effect intended: for, instead of crushing the nonconformists, the more they were persecuted, the more they multiplied.

The puritans having in vain sought for a reformation from the queen and the bishops, resolved to apply to the parliament, and stand by the const it ution. They published a treatise, presenting their grievances in one view. It was compiled by Mr. Held, assisted by Mr. Wilcocks, and revised by others. The work was entitled " An Admonition to the Parliament;" to which were annexed, Beza's letter to the Earl of Leicester, and Gaulter's to Bishop Parkhurst, upon the reformation of church discipline. It contains a platform of the church; the manners of electing ministers; with their several duties, and their equality in government.

* Strype's Parker, p. 394.

+ D. Ewes's Journal, p. 207.—Strype's Annals, vol. ii. p. 125. t Strype's Annals, vol. ii. p. 187.

$ In opposition to the above facts, Bishop Maddox insinuates that great favour and indulgence were shewn to the puritans, during this year; and refers to the words of Mr. Strype, saving, " That they were as gently treated as might be; no kind of brotherly persuasion omitted towards them; and most of them as yet kept their livings; though one or ttco were displaced." What degree of truth is contained in this statement, every one. will easily judge.—Maddoi's Vindication, p. 173. VoL. I. D

It then exposes with some degree of sharpness the corruptions of the church, and the proceedings of the bishops. The admonition then concludes, by petitioning the houses, that discipline, more consonant to the word of God, and more agreeable to other reformed churches, may be established by law. Mr. Field and Mr. Wilcocks presented it themselves to the house, for which they were apprehended, and sent to Newgate, where they remained in close and miserable confinement at least fifteen months. While the authors were thus prosecuted, the book spread abroad, and soon passed through several editions.*

The leading puritans having presented their numerous petitions to the queen, the bishops, and the parliament, to little or no purpose, agreed to attempt to promote the desired reformation in a more private way. For this purpose, they erected a presbytery at Wandsworth, near London. The members of this association were Messrs. Smith, Crane, Field, Wilcocks, Standen, Jackson, Bonham, Saintloc, and Edmunds; to whom were afterwards joined Messrs. Travers, Clarke, Barber, Gardiner, Cheston, Crook, Egerton, and a number of respectable laymen. Eleven elders were chosen, and their offices described in a register, entitled " The Orders of Wandsworth." This was the first presbyterian church in England. Notwithstanding that all imaginable care was taken to keep their proceedings secret, the bishops' eyes were upon them, who gave immediate intelli

fence to the high commission; upon which the queen issued er royal proclamation for a more exact observance of the act of uniformity. And though the bishops knew of the presbytery, they could not discover its members, nor prevent others from being erected in other parts of the kingdom.+

While multitudes of the best preachers were utterly silenced, the church of England stood in the greatest need of their zealous and faithful labours. It was, indeed, in a most deplorable condition. The conformable clergy obtained all the benefices in their power, and resided upon none, utterly neglecting t heir cures: many of them alienated the church lands, made unreasonable leases, wasted the wood upon the lands, and granted reversions and advowsons for their own advantage. The churches fell greatly into decay, and became unfit for divine service. Among the laity there was very little devotion; and the Lord's day was

* For a circumstantial account of the controversy excited by the publication of the " Admonition," see Art. Thomas Cartwrigbt.

t Fuller'* Church Hist. b. iz. p. 103.—Neal'» Puritans, Vol. i. p. 266.

generally profaned. Many were mere heathens, epicures, or atheists, especially those about the court; and good men feared that some sore judgment hung over the nation.*

In the year 1573, the queen issued her royal proclamation, " strictly commanding all archbishops and bishops, all justices of assizes, and all others having authority, to put in execution the act of uniformity of common prayer, with all diligence and severity, neither favouring, nor dissembling with any one person, who doth neglect, despise, or seek to alter the godly orders and rites set forth in the said book." The proclamation requires further, " that all who shall be found nonconformable in the smallest matter, shall be immediately apprehended and cast into prison; all who shall forbear coming to the common prayer, and receiving the sacraments, according to the said book, shall be immediately presented and punished; and all who shall either in private houses, or in public assemblies, use any other rites of common prayer and administration of sacraments, or shall maintain in their houses any persons guilty of these things, shall be punished with the utmost severity."* This, from the supreme governor of the church, inspired the zealous prelates with new life and courage. They enforced subscription upon the clergy with great rigour. Though the forms of subscription varied in different dioceses, that which was most commonly imposed was the following: " I ac" knowledge the book of articles agreed upon by the clergy " in the synod of 1563, and confirmed by the queen's " majesty, to be sound and according to the word of God.— " That the queen's majesty is the chief governor, next under " Christ, of this church of England, as well in ecclesiastical " as civil causes.—That in the Book of Common Prayer, " there is nothing evil or repugnant to the word of God, but " that it may well be used in this our christian church of " England.—And that as the public preaching of the word " in this church of England is sound and sincere, so the " public order in the ministration of the Sacraments is coni; sonant to the word of God."t

Upon the rigorous imposition of these forms, many ministers not being able with a good conscience to comply, were brought into great trouble. Messrs. Deering and Cartwright, together with Dr. Sampson and other excellent divines, endured much cruel usage for nonconformity.^ Dr. Wyburn, and Messrs. Brown, Johnson, Field, Wilcocks,

* Strype's Parker, p. 395. + Sparrow's Collec. p. 169, 170.

t Parle of a Register, p. 81. S Strype's Annals, vol. ii. p. 265—282.

Sparrow, and King, were deprived of their livings, and four of them committed to Newgate. They were told, that if they did not comply in a short time, they should be banished, though there was no law in existence to inflict any such punishment.* Mr. Johnson, who was fellow of King's college, Cambridge, and domestic chaplain to the Lord Keeper Bacon, was tried at Westminster-hall for nonconformity, and sent to the Gatehouse, where, through his cruel imprisonment, he soon after died. Several others, cast into prison at the same time, died under the pressures of their confinement. Mr. Bonham, Mr. Standen and Mr. Fcnn, were committed to prison, where they remained a long time. Mr. Wake, reclor of Great-Billing; Mr. Paget, minister of Oundle; Mr. Mosely, minister of Hardingstoue; Mr. Gilderd, minister of Collingtrec; and Mr. Dawson, minister of Weston-Favell, all in the diocese of Peterborough, were first suspended for three weeks, and then deprived of their livings. They were all useful preachers. Four of them were licensed by the uersity, as learned and religious divines, and three had been moderators in the religious exercises. Mr. Lowth, minister of Carlisle, was prosecuted in the high commission at York; while Mr. Sanderson and Dr. Crick, two learned and useful divines in Norfolk, fell into the hands of t he high commissioners in the south, when the latter was deprived of his preferment. Many others in the diocese of Norwich refusing conformity, were prosecuted in the ecclesiastical courts. + And Mr. Aldrich, with many others in the uersity of Cambridge, received much unchristian usage from the governing ecclesiastics. At the same time, John Townley, esq. a layman, was committed to prison for nonconformity, when Dean Nowell, his near kinsman, presented a petition to the president of the north and the Archbishop of York, for his release.!

The year 1574 was memorable for the suppression of the religious exercises, called prophesyings. Some of the bishops being persuaded of the usefulness of these exercises, discovered their unwillingness to put them down. This gave great offence to the queen, who addressed a letter to all the bishops in England, peremptorily commanding them to suppress them in their respective dioceses. Her majesty in this discovered a most despotic and tyrannical spirit. All the bishops and clergy in the nation must bow to her

sovereign pleasure.* This was the royal lady who renounced the infallibility of the Pope of Rome. In these exercises, the clergy were divided into classes, and each class was under the direction of a moderator appointed by the bishop of the diocese. They were held once a fortnight, when a portion of scripture formed the subject of discussion. They were holden publicly in the churches; and besides exposing the errors of popery, they were of unspeakable service in promoting a knowledge of the scriptures among the people. But the jealous archbishop looked upon them as the nurseries of puritanism, calling thein vain prophesying! A They tended, in his opinion, to promote popularity, insubordination, and nonconformity. But the archbishop did not long survive. For he died May 17, 1575; when he was succeeded by Dr. Edmund Grindal, Archbishop of York. He was a prelate of rigid and cruel principles, and much concerned to establish an exact uniformity in outward things, to the neglect of more important matters.}

During this year, a congregation of Dutch anabaptists was discovered, without Aldgate, London; twenty-seven of whom were apprehended and cast into prison, and four bearing fagots at Paul's cross, recanted their opinions. Eight were banished from the kingdom, and two Mere condemned to the flames, and burnt in Smithfield. The Dutch congregation in London interceded for their pardon, as did Mr. Fox, the martyrologist; but the queen remained inflexible, and the two poor men perfumed Smithfield with their ashes.^

The puritans, imder all their hardships, had many able friends at court, who stood firm in the cause of religious liberty. Therefore a committee was this year appointed by parliament to draw up a bill " For the Reformation of Church Discipline." But, as before, the house most probably received a check for attempting to interfere in religious matters.||

In the year 1576, many learned divines felt the vengeance of the ruling prelates. Mr. Harvy and Mr. Gawton, in

* Strype's Grindal, Appen. p. 85, 86. + Strvpe's Parker, p. 461.

{ Though a late writer affirms that Archbishop Parker " was prudent, gentle, and patient;" Hume says " he was rigid in exacting confoimity to the established worship, and in punishing, by lines or deprivation, all the puritanical clergymen, who attempted to innovate any thing in the habits, ceremonies, or liturgy of the church."—Chorion's Life of No well, p. I13f ^-Hume's Hut. of Eng. vol. v. p. 18i.

S See Art. Fox. U MS. Remarks, p. 463.

addition to many other troubles, were both suspended for nonconformity. As the storm approached, the ministers of Norfolk prepared for it, by presenting their humble supplication to the council, in which they express themselves as follows:—"As touching your letters wherein you say, that her majesty is fully bent to remove all those, who cannot be persuaded to conform themselves to all orders established, it grieveth our souls very much, considering what desolation is likely to come upon the poor flock of Christ, by being thus bereaved of many excellent pastors, who dare not yield to that conformity. Yet knowing that the hearts of princes are in the hands of God, we commit our cause, being God's own cause, unto him, waiting for a happy issue at his hands. In the mean time, we pour out our prayers before the throne of his mercy, to direct her majesty to promote his glory, lamenting our sins, and the sins of the land, as the reason of our prince being set against so godly a cause.

" As for ourselves, though we are willing to yield our bodies, goods, and lives to our sovereign prince, we dare not yield to this conformity, for fear of that terrible threatening of the Lord Jesus: ' Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones, it were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were cast into the depth of the sea.' And though we have ever so much knowledge of christian liberty, we dare not cause our weak brother to perish, for whom Christ died. For in sinning against them, and wounding their consciences, we sin against Christ. We conclude with the apostle, ' Wherefore if meat (so we say of ceremonies) make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest 1 make my brother to offend.' Therefore we dare not yield to these ceremonies, because, so far from edifying and building up the church, they have rent it asunder, and torn it in pieces, to its great misery and ruin, as God knoweth; and unless some mitigation be granted, still greater misery and ruin will follow, by stopping the mouths of the servants of God.

" Although her majesty be incensed against us, as if we would obey no laws, M'e take the Lord ot heaven and earth to witness, that we acknowledge, from the bottom of our hearts, her majesty to be our lawful queen, placed over us by God for our good ; and we give God our most humble and hearty thanks for her happy government; and, both in public and private, we constantly pray for her prosperity. We renounce all foreign power, and acknowledge her majesty's supremacy to be lawful and just. We detest all error and heresy. Yet we desire that her majesty will not think us disobedient, seeing we suffer ourselves to be displaced, rather than yield to some things required. Our bodies, and goods, and all we have, are in her majesty's hands; only our souls we reserve to our God, who alone is able to save us or condemn us.

" We humbly crave," say they, u that you will deal with her majesty, in our behalf. Let her majesty understand, that all laws commanding things which edify not, but are offensive, are contrary to the word of God. Let her further understand how dangerous a thing it is, to urge the observance of human ceremonies with greater severity, than the observance of the law of God. The word of God is in danger of being made of no effect, by the traditions of men. Though, in scripture, ministers are commanded to preach the word of God, this is now not half so strictly examined and enforced, as the observance of the ceremonies. Through the whole land it is manifest, that a minister who is conformable to the ceremonies, may continue on his charge undisturbed, though he cannot teach : so if he be ever so able to teach as God hath commanded, yet if he cannot conform to those ceremonies which men have devised and appointed, he must not continue in the ministry. This must needs be preferring the ordinance of man before the word of God."*

This supplication proving ineffectual, Messrs. John More, Richard Crick, George Leeds, Thomas Roberts, Vincent Goodwin, Richard Dowe, and John Mapes, all ministers in or near the city of Norwich, were suspended.t Mr. Thickpenny, a minister of good learning, and much beloved by his parishioners, was suspended for nonconformity. Mr. Greenham, a divine of a most excellent spirit, received the like treatment, because he could not in conscience subscribe and wear the habits, though he cautiously avoided speaking against them, lest he should give offence. Mr. Rockrey, a divine of great eminence at Cambridge, was twice expelled from the uersity for a similar offence. Mr. Field and Mr. Wilcocks having already suffered a long and painful imprisonment, were brought into fresh troubles. They were convened before Bishop Aylmer, who pronounced Mr. Field obstinate, for having taught children in

gentlemens' houses, contrary to the prohibition of the archbishop. Aylmer recommended, as their punishment, that they should both be sent into the most barbarous parts of the country, where they might be profitably employed in turning the people from the errors of popery. Mr. Whittingham, dean of Durham, a divine of distinguished eminence, was exercised with many troubles, which continued to the day of his death.

In the year 1579, Mr. Lawrence, already mentioned, was suspended by his diocesan. Though repeated intercessions were made for him, particularly by the lord treasurer, the bishop peremptorily refused to restore him, without a perfect conformity to all the rites and ceremonies. Mr. Merbury underwent a long examination before the high commission, when he was treated with much foul, abusive language. Bishop Aylmer, seldom sparing in bitter invectives, called him " a vert/ ass, an idiot, and a foot." He was then sent to the Marshalsea, where he remained a prisoner several years. Aylmer, indeed, was not behind any of his brethren in the persecution of the puritans. This prelate, to enforce a due observance of the ecclesiastical orders, cited the London ministers before him no less than five times in one year. On these occasions, he made inquisition whether they truly and faithfully observed all things contained in the Book of Common Prayer; whether any preached without a license; and whether any kept private conventicles. In the visitation of his diocese, he inquired of ministers, churchwardens, and sworn-men, in every parish, whether there were any persons who refused to conform, to attend the church, or to receive the communion ; and for what cause they refused. He required all ministers to wear the surplice, to keep to the exact order of public service, and to observe all the ceremonies without the slightest alteration. His lordship had no mercy on such as did not comply in every punctilio; and warmly declared, that he would surely and severely punish offenders, or, " I will lie," said he, " in the dust for it."*

This prelate had very little compassion in his nature, and apparently as little regard for the laws of the country, or the cries of the people for the word of God. There was a great scarcity of preachers in all parts of England; and even the city of London was now in a most lamentable state, as appears from their petition to parliament, in which

are these words:—" There are in this city a great number of churches, but the one-haif of them at the least are utterly unfurnished of preaching ministers, and are pestered with candlesticks not of gold, but of clay, with watchmen that have no eyes, and clouds that have no water: the other half, partly by means of nonresidents, which are very many; and partly through the poverty of many meanly qualified, there is scarcely the tenth man that makes conscience to wait upon his charge, whereby the 1^ord's sabbath is often wholly neglected, and for the most part miserably mangled; ignorance increaseth, and wickedness comes upon us like an armed man. Therefore we humbly on our knees beseech this honourable assembly, in the bowels and blood of Jesus Christ, to become humble suitors to her majesty, that we may have guides; that the bread of life may be brought home to us; that the pipes of water may be brought into our assemblies; that there may be food and refreshing for us, our poor wives and forlorn children: so shall the Lord have his due honour; you shall discharge good duty to her majesty; many languishing souls shall be comforted; atheism and heresy banished; her majesty have more faithful subjects; and you more hearty prayers for your prosperity in this, life, and full happiness in the life to come."*

In the county of Cornwall there were one hundred and forty clergymen, scarcely any of whom could preach a sermon, and most of them were pluralisms and nonresidents. The inhabitants of the county, in their supplication to the parliament, gave the following affecting description of their case :—" We have about one hundred and sixty churches, the greatest part of which are supplied by men who are guilty of the grossest sins; some fornicators, some adulterers, some felons, bearing the marks in their hands for the said offence; some drunkards, gamesters on the sabbath-day, &c. We have many nonresidents, who preach but once a quarter; so that between meal and meal the silly sheep may starve. We have some ministers who labour painfully and faithfully in the Lord's husbandry; but they are not suffered to attend their callings, because the mouths of papists, infidels, and filthy livers, are open against them, and the ears of those who are called lords over them, are sooner open to their accusations, though it be only for ceremonies, than to the others' answers. Nor is it safe for

• MS. Register, p. 30?.

us to hear them; for though our own fountains are dried up, yet if we seek for the waters of life elsewhere, we are cited into the spiritual courts, reviled, and threatened with excommunication."* The ground of this scarcity was the violence of the high commission, and the narrow terms of conformity. Most of the old incumbents, says Dr. Keltridge, were disguised papists, more fit to sport with the timbrel and pipe, than to take into their hands the book of God.+

The common topic of conversation now was the Queen's marriage with the Duke of Anjou, a notorious papist.} All true protestants were displeased and under alarming apprehensions. The puritans in general protested against the match, dreading the consequence of having a protestant body, under a popish head. Mr. John Stubbs, a student of Lincoln's-inn, and a gentleman of excellent abilities, published a book, entitled " The Discoverie of the Gaping Gulph, whereinto England is like to be swallowed by another French marriage, if the Lord forbid not the banns, by letting her Majestie see the sin and punishment thereof." It no sooner came forth, than the queen issued her proclamation to suppress the book, and apprehend the author and

frinter. Stubbs the author, Singleton the printer, and age the disperser, were apprehended, and sentenced to have their right hands cut off. Singleton was pardoned, but Stubbs and Page were brought to a scaffold erected at Westminster; where, with terrible formality, their right hands were cut off, by driving a cleaver through the wrist with a mallet; but as soon as Stubbs's right hand was cut off, he pulled off his hat with his left, and, to the great amazement of the spectators, exclaimed God save the Queen.S He was then sent to the Tower, where he remained a long time; but afterwards proved himself a loyal subject, and a valiant and faithful commander in the wars in Ireland.

Many of the puritans being dissatisfied with the terms of conformity, and the episcopal ordination of the church of England, went to Antwerp and other places, where they received ordination according to the practice of the foreign reformed churches. Among these were Messrs. Cartwright, Fenner, Ashton, Travers, and "Wright. The last, upon his return, became domestic chaplain to Lord Rich; but for saying, that " to keep the queen's birth-day as an

• MS. Register, p. 300. t Strype's Aylmer, p. 32.

1 Strype's Annals, vol. ii. p. 566.

J Kennel's Hist, of Eng. vol. ii. p. 487.

holiday, was to make her an idol" Bishop Aylmer committed him to the Fleet. Lord Rich, for attempting to vindicate him, was at the same time sent to the Marshalsea, and Mr. Dix to the Gatehouse.* Mr. Morley, a Norfolk minister, and Mr. Handson, preacher at Bury St. Edmunds, were both greatly molested, and suspended for nonconformity. The lord treasurer, with several other eminent persons, interceded with the bishop for the restoration of Mr. Handson, but all to no purpose. The angry prelate peremptorily declared, that he should not be restored, unless he would publicly acknowledge his fault, and enter into bonds for his good behaviour in future. Mr. Drewit was committed to Newgate, and Mr. Nash to the Marshalsea, where they remained a long time. Also, during this year, Mathew Hament, a poor plow-wright at Hethersett, near Norwich, being suspected of holding many unsound and dangerous opinions, was convened before the Bishop of Norwich, condemned as an heretic, and, May 20th, committed to the flames in the castle-ditch. As a preparative to this punishment, his ears were cut off on the 13th of the same month.t These proceedings were too conformable to those of the church of Rome.

Great numbers of pious and learned ministers were now indicted at the assizes, for omitting to use the surplice, the cross in baptism, the ring in marriage, or some part of the common prayer. They were ranked with the worst of felons, and exposed to public contempt, to the great dishonour of God, and injury of her majesty's subjects. Many persons of quality in the various counties of England, petitioned the lords of the council in behalf of the persecuted ministers. In the Suffolk petition are these words:— ** The painful pastors and ministers of the word, by what justice we know not, are now of late brought to the bar at every assize; marshalled with the worst malefactors, indicted, arraigned, and condemned for matters, as we presume, of very slender moment: some for having holidays unbidden; some for singing the hymn nunc dimittis in the morning; some for turning the question in baptism from the infants to the godfathers, which is only^ow, for thou ; some for leaving out the cross in baptism; some for leaving out the ring in marriage; whereunto," say they, " neither the law, nor the lawmakers, in our judgment, had ever any regard.}

But instead of relieving the suffering ministers, their burdens were greatly increased. In the year 1580, the parliament passed a law, entitled " An Act to retain the Queen's Subjects in their due Obedience," which enacted " That all persons who do not come to church or chapel, or other place where common prayer is said, according to the act of uniformity, shall forfeit twenty pounds per month to the queen, and suffer imprisonment till paid. Those who are absent for twelve months, shall, besides their former fine, be bound with two sufficient sureties in a bond of two hundred pounds, until they conform. And every schoolmaster who does not come to common prayer, shall forfeit ten pounds a month, be disabled from teaching school, and suffer a year's imprisonment."* This, says a learned churchman, was little better than making merchandize of souls.t The fine was, indeed, unmerciful, and the common people had nothing to expect but to rot in jails.

The legislature, by these violent measures, overshot the mark, and instead of crushing the puritans, or reconciling them to the church, they drove them farther from it. Men of integrity will not easily be beaten from their principles by canons, injunctions, subscriptions, fines, or imprisonment; much less will they esteem the church fighting with such weapons. Multitudes were by these methods driven to a total separation, and they became so far opposed to the persecuting church of England, as not to allow it to be a true church, nor its ministers true ministers. They renounced all communion with it, not only in the prayers and ceremonies, but in hearing the word and the sacraments. These were called Brow Nists, from Robert Brown, at this time a preacher in the diocese of Norwich. The Brownists did not differ from the church of England in matters of faith; but were very rigid in points of discipline. They maintained the discipline of the church of England to be popish and antichristian, and all her ordinances to be invalid. They apprehended that, according to scripture, every church ought to be confined within a single congregation; and the choice of its officers, and the admission and exclusion of members, with all its other regulations, ought to be determined by the brotherhood. Many of the Brownists were great sufferers in their zeal for nonconformity : among these were Mr. Copping and Mr. Thacker, ministers in the county of Suffolk. After suffering imprisonment seven

* Burn's Eccl. Law, vol. ii. p. 146.
t Fuller's Church Hist. b. ix. p. 131.

years, for spreading Brown's books against the bishops and the established church, they were tried, condemned, and hanged at Bury St* Edmunds. At the same time, Mr. John Lewis, for denying the godhead of Christ, and, it is said, for holding other detestable heresies, was burnt at Norwich, September 17, 1583.*

Upon the death of Archbishop Grindal,+ Dr. John Whitgift became Archbishop of Canterbury, and was confirmed September 23, 1583. The queen charged him " to restore the discipline of the church, and the uniformity established by law, which," says she, " through the conance of some prelates, the obstinacy of the puritans, and the power of some noblemen, is run out of square.''^ Therefore, in obedience to her majesty's royal command, the new archbishop immediately published the following articles, and sent them to the bishops of his province, for their direction in the government of their dioceses:— " That all reading, preaching, catechising, and praying in any private family, where any are present besides the family, be utterly extinguished.—That none do preach or catechise except he also read the whole service, and administer the sacrament four times a year.—That all preachers, and others in ecclesiastical orders, do at all times wear the habits prescribed.—And that none be admitted to preach, or to execute any part of the ecclesiastical function, unless they be ordained according to the manner of the church of England; nor unless they subscribe the three following articles."

1. " That the queen hath, and ought to have, the sove" reignty and rule over all manner of persons, born " within her dominions, of what condition soever they be; " and that none other power or potentate hath, or ought to " have, any power, ecclesiastical or civil, within her realms " or dominions.

2. " That the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordaining " bishops, priests, and deacons, containeth in it nothing " contrary to the word of God, but may be lawfully used;

* Parallel betwixt Phanatics, p. II. Edit. 1661 : from Stow.

t Grindal, in his latter days, was much inclined to favour the puritans, and was, with great difficultv, brought to punish them for their nonconformity. He had not sat long in the chair of Canterbury, before he was suspended and confined in his own bouse, for not suppressing the religious exercises called Propbcsyings, which his conscience told him should have been encouraged and promoted. He continued under the tyrannical censure several years.—Hume's Hist, of Eng. vol. v. p. 188—Qrangcr's Biog. Hist. vol. i. p. 204.

t Kennet's Hist, of Eng. vol. ii. p. 494.

" and that he himself will use the same, and none other, in " public prayer and administration of the sacraments.

3. " That he alloweth the book of articles, agreed upon " in the convocation holden at London in 1562, and set " forth by her majesty's authority; and he believe all the " articles therein contained to be agreeable to the word "of God."»

These were called WhitgifCs articles, because he was their principal author. Subscription to them was required for many years, without the warrant of any statute or canon whatsoever. By Whitgift's strict imposition of them upon all ministers, multitudes who refused to comply were suspended and deprived. They would most cordially have subscribed to the first and third, but could not in conscience subscribe, " That the Book of Common Prayer and Ordination contained nothing contrary to the word of God"+ These proceedings excited uersal alarm, and great numbers of worthy ministers were brought under the ecclesiastical censure. Sixty-four ministers were suspended in . the county of Norfolk, sixty in Suffolk,} thirty in Sussex, thirty-eight in Essex, twenty in Kent, and twenty-one in Lincolnshire. Among those in the county last mentioned, were Messrs. Charles Bingham, vicar of Croft, John Somerscales of Beseby, Joseph Gibson of Swaby, William Muming, vicar of Claxby, Reignald Grome of Thedilthorp

• Strype's Wbitgift, p. 115, 116. + MS. Register, p. 513.

} The names of those suspended in Suffolk, were the following, fortyfour of the last being suspended on one day |—Nicholas Bound, minister of Norton; Richard Grandish, A. M. rector of Bradficld; Lawrance Whitaker, A. B. rector of Bradfield; Richard Holden, A. B. rector of Testock; Gaulter Allen, B.D. of Rushbrook; Reignald Whitfield, A.M. of Barrow;Thoma8 Rogers of Horningsheath; Anthony Rowe of Hedgesset; Thomas Warren; William Cook; William Holden; Nicholas Bonnington, rector of Chettisham; John Tylmen, A. M. of Borgholt; Richard Dowe, A. M. vicar of Stratford ; John Carter, A. M. vicar of Bramford; Martin Brige, A. M. vicar of Brettenham; Henry Sandes of Box ford ; John Holden, rector of Bildeston; Thomas Cranshawe, A. M. rector of Boxted; Peter Cook, enrate to Mr. Cranshawe; John Knewstubs, B. D. rector of Cock field; William Hey, rector of Nedging; John Aullhroppe of Sudbury; Robert Ballard, A. B. rector of Clare: Lawrance Fairclough, vicar of Haverhil; John Ward; Nicholas Egleston, rector of Stradshill; William Turner,< rector of Wratting-Parva; Robert Prick of Deoham; Thomas Sutton, A. M. rector of Eriswell; Josias Hallington, Edmund Salmon, Thomas Jeffraye, Thomas Wattis, Mr. Phillips, Roger Notle, Roger Geffrey, John Smith, John Forthe, Thomas Moore, William Browne, John Cooper, William Flemmiog, Robert Sweete, William Bentloc, John Smith, Thomas Hagas, Daniel Dennis, George Webb, William Bend, John English, Thomas Fowle, Robert Cotsford, Richard King, Mr. Lovell, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Pigge, Mr. Hill, Mr. Smith, and Dr. Crick.—MS. Register, p. 437.

St. Hellen, Mr. Sheppard, vicar of Bardney, Mr. Bradley of Torksey, Mr. Huddlestone of Saxilby, Mr. Rellet of Carlton in Moreland, Mr. Nelson of Skinnand, Mr. Hughe of Silk-Willoughby, Mr. Daniel of Ingolsby, Mr. Richard Holdsworth of Boothby, Mr. Thomas Fulbeck of Boultham, Mr. Anthony Hunt of West-Deeping, and Mr. Richard Allen of Ednam.« Great numbers in the diocese of Peterborough, in the city of London, and other parts of the kingdom, received the like ecclesiastical censure.

Multitudes of the best ministers and most laborious preachers in the nation, as the Earl of Leicester observes, were now deprived of their ministry.t The terrible storm fell upon Mr. Fenner and Mr. Wood, who were imprisoned twelve months, and suspended seven or eight years. Mr. -Stroud was deprived of his ministry, and commanded to leave the country. He had so high a reputation, and was so uersally beloved, that no less than thirteen petitions were presented to the archbishop for his restoration; but all to no purpose. Messrs. Underdown, Hopkinson, Norden, and Hely, together with Mr. Anthony Hobson, vicar of Leominster; Mr. John German, vicar of Buringham; Mr. Richard Whitaker, vicar of Almerby; Mr. William Clark, vicar of Langton; Mr. John Bingham, minister of Hadleigh, Mr. Turner, Mr. Star, Mr. Jackson, and many others, were all suspended at the same time.} Mr. Hill, minister at Bury St. Edmunds, for having omitted the cross in baptism, and making some trivial alteration in the vows, was suspended, several times indicted at the assizes, and committed to prison, where he continued a long time. The venerable Mr. Fenn was cited to Lambeth and suspended. Messrs. Hooke, Paget, and Oxenbridge, suffered the like ecclesiastical censure. Mr. Daniel Dyke, a most excellent divine, was twice suspended, deprived of his ministry, and driven out of the county. Mr. Benison was committed to the Gatehouse, where, to his unspeakable injury, he remained five years. Upon his application to the council, the lords were so moved with the reading of his case, that they wrote to Bishop Aylmer, signifying that he ought to make the good man some considerable recompence for his hard dealing. Dr. Browning was deprived of his fellowship at Cambridge, and forced from the uersity. Mr. Brayne, another learned divine at Cambridge, was cited to Lambeth, and, refusing the oath ex officio, was suspended. Many

others in the diocese of Ely were prosecuted for nonconformity. Also Messrs. Barber, Field, Egerton, and Rockrey, were all suspended, part of whom continued under the censure many years. Mr. Elliston of Preston, in Northamptonshire, was, for three years together, continually molested and cited before the prelates. During that period, he had ten journies to London, seven to Peterborough, one to Cambridge, and many to Leicester and Northampton. He was greatly impoverished, suspended from his ministry, and deprived of his living. Mr. Cawdrey, rector of Luffenham in Rutlandshire, a divine of good reputation, was suspended, deprived, cast into prison, degraded from the ministry, and, with a family of eight children, left to starve as a mere layman : also, during his troubles, which continued many years, he had twenty-two expensive journies to London. Mr. John Holden, rector of Bildeston, was suspended and excommunicated for not subscribing to Whitgift's articles.* Mr. Hopkins, vicar of Nazing, in Essex, was, for the same thing, deprived of his benefice. Mr. Whiting of Panfield, was twice suspended, and then deprived. Mr. Hawkdon, vicar of Fryon, was indicted at the assizes, suspended, and deprived of his living. Mr. Huckle of Eythorp-Roding, was suspended; and though the lords of the council applied to the bishop for his restoration, his grace positively refused. Mr. Cornwell of Markshall, was suspended, and openly reviled by the bishop, who called him wretch, and beast, and committed him to the custody of his pursuivant. Mr. Negus of Leigh, was suspended and deprived, for not promising to wear the surplice, though there was no surplice in the parish. Mr. Seridge of East Havingfield, was suspended and three times indicted at the assizes. Mr. Carew of Hatfield, being cited before the bishop, and refusing the oath ex officio, was suspended, deprived, and committed to the Fleet; and Mr. Allen, his patron, was committed at the same time. Mr. Gifford, vicar of Maldon, was twice suspended, and cast into prison, and his troubles continued several years. Mr. Morley of Ridgwell, having been molested several years, was indicted at the assizes, committed to prison, and obliged to enter into bonds not to preach any more within the diocese of London. Upwards of thirty other ministers in the county of Essex were suspended, deprived, or worse treated, by the inhuman proceedings of Bishop Aylmer,

* MS. Register, p. 58G, 587.

for refusing to subscribe, wear the surplice, or some other trivial matter.* He, moreover, advised the heads of the uersity of Cambridge to call in all their licenses, and expel all who refused to wear the apparel, saying, " The folly that is bound up in the heart of a child, is to be expelled by the rod of discipline."+ This cruel, perse

hated like a dog, and was called the oppressor of the children of God.*

While the puritans were suffering the above extremities, there was the greatest scarcity of preachers in all parts of the kingdom. It appears from an impartial survey of all the comities of England, that there were only 2000 preachers, to serve nearly 10,000 parishes: S and while many of the best and most useful preachers were silenced, there were multitudes of pluralists, nonresidents, and ministers, who could not preach. There were 416 ministers who could not preach in the county of Norfolk, 457 in Lincolnshire, and the same in other counties.|| Numerous petitions were, at the same time, presented to parliament in favour of the suffering nonconformists; but by the opposition and influence of Whitgift and other prelates, they were rejected.5 The lords of the council being much concerned for the persecuted ministers, wrote to Whitgift and Aylmer, saying, " That they had received complaints, that great numbers of zealous and learned preachers in various counties, especially in Essex, were suspended or deprived; that there was no preaching, prayers, or sacraments in the vacant places; that in some places, the persons appointed to succeed them, had neither good learning, nor good

* The names of these persecuted servants of Christ, were the following:— Messrs. Wyresdnle of Maldon, Carr of Rayne, Tonstal of Totham, Piggot of Tilbury, Ward of Writtle, Dyke of Coggeshall, Northey of Colchester, Newman of Coggeshall, Tayc of Pildon, Parker of Dedham, Farrar of Langham, Serls of Leiden, Lewis of St. Peter's, Colchester, Cock of St. Giles's, Colchester, Beaumont of Easthorpe, Redrige of Hutton, Chaplain of Hempsted, Culverwell of Felsted, Chapman of Dedham, Knevit, Mileend, Colchester, Rogers of Wcthersfield, Wilton of Aldham, Forth of Great-Glaston, Winkfield of Wicks, Dent of South-Southberry, Pain of Tolesbury, Barker of Prittlewell, Larking of Little-Walthara, Camillus Rusticus of Fangy, Howell of Paglesham, Maiburne of Great-Makering, Knight of Hempsted, and Chadwick of Danbury. These, says our author, are the painful ministers of Essex, of whom says the bishop, " You shall be white with me, or 1 will be black with you."—MS. Register, p. 5S4, 741,742.

+ Strype's Aylmer, p. 69. ± Ibid. p. 96.

S MS. Register, p. 206. II Ibid. p. 696.

i Strype's Whitgift, p. 176—183.

therefore, with truth say, " He was

name; and that in other places, a great number of persons occupying cures, were notoriously unfit, some for lack of learning, and others chargeable with enormous faults: as, drunkenness, jilthiness of life, gaming at cards, haunting of ale-houses, &c. against whom they heard of" no proceedings."* The Lord Treasurer Burleigh, also, himself addressed the archbishop, saying, " I am sorry to trouble you so oft as I do, but I am more troubled myself, not only with many private petitions of ministers, recommended for persons of credit, and peaceable in their ministry, who are greatly troubled by your grace and your colleagues; but I am daily charged by counsellors and public persons, with neglect of my duty, in not staying your grace's vehement proceedings against ministers, whereby papists are encouraged, and the queen's safety endangered.—I have read over your twenty-four articles, formed in a Romish style, to examine all manner of ministers, and to be executed ex officio nuro. I think the Inquisition of Spain used not so many questions to comprehend and to trap their priests. Surely this judicial and canonical sifting of poor ministers, is not to edify or reform. This kind of proceeding is too much savouring of the Romish Inquisition, and is a device to seek for offenders, rather than to reform them."+ But these applications were to no purpose: for, as Fuller observes, " This was the constant custom of Whitgift; if any lord or lady sued for favour to any nonconformist, he would profess how glad he was to serve them, and gratify their desires, assuring them for his part, that all possible kindness should be indulged to them, but he would remit nothing of his rigour. Thus he never denied any great man's desire, and yet never granted it; pleasing them for the present with general promises, but still kept to his own resolution; whereupon the nobility ceased making any further application to him, knowing them to be ineffectual."J

The commons in parliament, at the same time, were not unmindful of the liberties of the subject. They presented a petition to the upper house, consisting of sixteen articles, with a view to further the reformation of the church, to remove the grievances of the puritans, and to promote an union of the conformists and nonconformists. But by the opposition of the bishops, nothing could be done.^ All that the puritans could obtain, was a kind of conference

betwixt the Archbishop and the Bishop of Winchester, on the one part; and Dr. Sparke and Mr. Travers, on the other, in the presence of the Earl of Leicester, Lord Gray,

ence was held at Lambeth, concerning things needful to be reformed in the Book of Common Prayer.*

In the year 1586, the persecution of the puritans went forwards with unabating fury. The celebrated Mr. Travers was silenced by Archbishop Whitgift. Mr. Udal was suspended and deprived of his living. Mr. Glover was convened before Whitgift, and cast into prison. Mr. Moore was cited before the high commission at York, where he endured many troubles. Mr. Hildersham, a most excellent divine, was suspended, and commanded to make a public recantation. Dr. Walward, a learned professor of divinity at Oxford, and Mr. Gillibrand, fellow of Magdalen college in the same uersity, were both cited before the high commission at Lambeth; when they were suspended, enjoined public recantations, and obliged to enter into bonds till they were performed. Mr. Gardiner was deprived and committed to Newgate by Bishop Aylmer, from whom he received most cruel usage. Mr. Wigginton, vicar of Sedburgh, was deprived of his living, and afterwards apprehended and carried before Whitgift; who, upon his refusal of the oath ex officio, committed him to prison, where he was treated with the utmost barbarity. The tyrannical archbishop also deprived him a second time, and degraded him from the ministry. Mr. Wigginton afterwards obtaining his release, returned home ; and venturing to preach after his lordship's censure, he was apprehended and sent prisoner to Lancaster castle, where he remained a long time under very cruel usage. At the same time, about one hundred and forty of his people, for hearing him preach, were excommunicated. The zealous minister having at length obtained his liberty, was again apprehended and carried before Whitgift, who, for refusing the above oath, committed him to the Gatehouse, where he continued most probably till he consented to be banished. Mr. Settle, a Suffolk divine, was arraigned before the archbishop, who treated him with very reproachful language, calling him ass, dolt, fool,- and after many threatenings, the angry prelate sent him to the Gatehouse, where he continued close prisoner

The confer

• See Art. Traven.

many years. Such were the proceedings of that archbishop who is said to have been eminently distinguished for his mild and excellent temper.*

The suffering puritans, during this year, presented a petition to the convocation, tending to promote a reconciliation betwixt the conformists and nonconformists, but most probably without the least effect.+ They also made another effort to obtain a redress of their grievances from the parliament, by presenting an humble supplication to the house of commons ; in which they say, " It pierces our hearts with grief to hear the cries of the people for the word of God. The bishops either preach not at all, or very seldom. And others abandon their flocks, contrary to the charge of Christ, feed my sheep. But great numbers of the best qualified for preaching, and of the most industrious in their spiritual function, are not suffered quietly to discharge their duties, but are followed with innumerable vexations, notwithstanding they are neither heretics nor schismatics, but keep within the pale of the church, and persuade others so to do, who would have departed from it. Tiiey fast and pray for the queen and the church, though they have been rebuked for it, and diversly punished by officers both civil and ecclesiastical. They are suspended and deprived of their ministry, and the fruits of their livings sequestered to others. This has continued many years ; and last of all many of them are committed to prison, when some have been chained with irons, and continued in hard durance a long time.

" To bring about these severities, the bishops tender the suspected persons an oath ex officio, to answer all interrogatories to be put to them, though it b6 to accuse themselves ; and when they have got a confession, they proceed upon it to punish them with all rigour, contrary to the laws of God and the land. Those who ref used have been cast into prison, and commanded there to lie without bail, till they would yield. The grounds of these troubles are not impiety, immorality, want of learning or diligence in their ministerial work, but not being satisfied in the use of certain ceremonies and orders of the church of Rome, and for not being able to declare, that every thing in the Book of Common Prayer is agreeable to the word of God."t Two bills were at the same time brought into the house of commons, for the abolition of the old ecclesiastical laws,

» Paule's Life of Whitgift, p. 37. + Parte of a Register, p. 323. t MS. Register, p. 672.

and the old Book of Common Prayer, and for the establishment of a new one; but the queen being offended, forbad them to proceed.*

All the endeavours of the puritans proving ineffectual, and being wearied with repeated applications to their superiors, they began to despair of obtaining relief. Therefore, in one of their assemblies, they came to this conclusion : " That since the magistrates could not be induced to reform the discipline of the church, it was lawful, after waiting so many years, to act without them, and introduce a reformation in the best manner they could." They had their private classes or associations in Essex, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, London, Cambridge and other places, when they consulted about the most proper means of promoting the desired object. And having revised their book, entitled " The Holy Discipline of the Church, described in the Word of God," it was subscribed by above five hundred ministers, all divines of good learning, and of unspotted lives. +

In the year 1587, Mr. Holmes, rector of Kenn, was driven from his flock and his living. Mr. Horrocks, vicar of Kildwick, in the West-Riding of Yorkshire, was convened before the high commission at York, committed to York castle, and enjoined a public recantation, for suffering Mr. Wilson, another puritan minister, to preach in his church, though it was his native place. Mr. Wilson was also convened, and cast into prison. -Alter he had obtained his release, he was obliged to remove out of the archbishop's province; and going to London, he was called before Whitgift and suspended. Mr. Allison was twice suspended. Mr. Penry was summoned before the high commission and committed to prison. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bainbrigg, both fellows in the uersity of Cambridge, and popular preachers, were cast into prison, where they continued a long time. Mr. Jewel was tried at the public assizes for nonconformity, and condemned to suffer five months' imprisonment. Mr. Wight was harassed for many years, when his study was broken open, searched, and his private papers carried away. Mr. Darrel and Mr. Moore were both cited before the high commission at Lambeth, when the former was deposed from his ministry, and committed close prisoner to the Gatehouse, and the latter close prisoner to the Clink, where they continued

many years. Mr. Udal was summoned before the council, sent close prisoner to the Gatehouse, and not suffered to have pen, ink, or paper, or any one to speak to him. He was afterwards tried at the public assizes and condemned as a felon. Having received sentence of death, pardon was offered him if he would have recanted ; but he continued firm to his principles, and died in the Marshalsea, as a martyr in the cause of religious liberty.

The proceedings of the high commission against the afflicted puritans, now exceeding all bounds, men of the greatest eminence began even to question the legality of the court. But the archbishop, to get over this difficulty, and remove the odium from himself, sent the principal nonconformists, especially those possessed of worldly estates, to be prosecuted in the star-chamber.* Indeed, several of the bishops, as well as many of the lords temporal, opposed these proceedings; and it appears from a list now before me, that upwards of one hundred and twenty of the house of commons, were not only averse to persecution, but zealous advocates for a reformation of the church, and the removal of those burdens under which the puritans groaned.t Therefore, in 1588, a bill against pluralities and nonresidence passed the commons, and was carried up to the lords; but by the determined opposition of the zealous prelates, it came to nothing.}

The puritans still continued to hold their associations. Many divines, highly celebrated both for learning and piety, were leaders in their assemblies, and chosen moderators : as, Messrs. Knewstubs, Gifford, Kogers, Fenn and Cartwrigbt.^ At one of these assemblies, held at Coventry, it was resolved, " That private baptism is unlawful.— That the sign of the cross ought not to be used in baptism.— That the faithful ought not to communicate with ignorant ministers.—That the calling of bishops is unlawful.— That it is not lawful to be ordained by them, nor to rest in their deprivation of any from the ministry.—And that

* Fuller's Cbnrch Hist. b. ix. p. 187.
+ MS. Chronology, vol. H. p. 417. (15.)

$ During tbe debate upon this bill in the upper houses, when it was signified that the queen would confer with the bishops upon the points contained in tbe bill, the celebrated Lord Gray said, " be greatly wondered at her majesty choosing to confer with those who were enemies to the reformation; and added, that be wished the bishops might be served as they were in the days of Henry VIII. when they were all thrust out of doors."—Strypt a Annals, vol. iii. p. 543.—Fuller's Church Hill. b. ix. p. 190.

§ Strype's Annals, vol, iii. p. 470, 471.

for the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline, it ought to be taught the people, as occasion shall serve.* Some of the more zealous nonconformists about this time, published Martin Mar-Prelate, and other satirical pamphlets.t They were designed to expose the blemishes of the established church, and the tyrannical proceedings of the bishops. They contained much truth, but were clothed in very offensive language. Many of the puritans were charged with being the authors: as, Udal, Penry, Throgmorton, and Wigginton; but the real authors were never known. However, to put a stop to these publications, the queen issued her royal proclamation, " For calling in all schismatic al and seditious books, as tending to introduce monstrous and dangerous innovation, with the malicious purpose of dissolving the present prelacy and established church."$

The flame of contention betwixt the conformists and nonconformists, broke out this year with redoubled fury, when Dr. Bancroft, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, ventured to assert, that the order of bishops was superior to that of presbyters, by divine appointment, and that the denial of it was heresy. This new doctrine ^ was readily adopted by many, in favour of their high notions of episcopal ordination, and gave new fuel to the flame of controversy. They who embraced the sentiments of Bancroft, considered all ministers not episcopally ordained, as irregularly invested with the sacred oflice, as interior to the Romish priests, and as mere laymen.||

In the year 1590, the persecution of the puritans still raged with unabating fury. Many of the best divines were prosecuted with the utmost rigour in the high commission and the star-chamber. Mr. Hubbock and Mr. Kendal, two divines in great repute at Oxford, were cited before

« Fuller's Church Hist.b. ix. p. 104.

+ The bishops having cried out loudly against Martin Mar-Prelate, it was prohibited that no person should presume to carry it about him, upon pain of punishment. This the queen declared in the presence of the Earl of Leicester, who, pulling the book out of his pocket, and shewing it the queen, said, " what then will become of me?" But it does not appear that any thing was done.—Seltclion Harleim Miscel. p. 157. Edit. 1793.

?Sparrow's Collec. p. 17S. The first English reformers admitted only two orders of church-officers, bishops and deacons, to be of divine appointment. They accounted a bishop and a presbyter to be only two names for the same office. But Bancroft, in his sermon at Paul's Cross, January 13, 1588, maintained, that the bishops of England were a distinct order from priests, and possessed a suporiority over them, jure divino. Mr. Strype thinks that Bancroft published this new doctrine under the instructions of Wuitgift.—Strype's Whitgift, p. 292. U Moibeim's Eccl. Hist. vol. iv, p. 393.

Whitgift, and suspended. Mr. Hildersham was prosecuted a second time in the high commission, and again suspended. He was obliged to enter into bonds not to preach in any part of England; and when restored he was not allowed, for some time, to preach at any place south of the river Trent. The celebrated Mr. Cartwright, with many of his brethren, endured much severe persecution. This divine having been prosecuted for nonconformity, was driven into a foreign land, where he remained several years in a state of exile. Upon his return for the benefit of his health, he was immediately apprehended, and, though in a very lan

fuishing condition, was cast into prison. At length, aving obtained his liberty, he was suspended by his diocesan, and convened before the high commission, when thirty-one articles were exhibited against him. But refusing the oath ex officio, to answer these articles, he was immediately committed to the Fleet, with his brethren, Messrs. Stephen Egerton, Humphrey Fenn, Daniel Wight,

Farmer, Edward Lord, Edmund Suape, Andrew

King, Rushbrooke, Wiggins, John Field,

Royde, John Payne, William Proudlove, Melancton Jewel, &c* Many others were summoned at the same time: as, Messrs. Henry Alvey, Thomas Edmunds, William Perkins, Edmund Littleton, John Johnson, Thomas Stone, Thomas Barber, Hercules Cleavely, and Andrew Nutter. These believing it to be their duty to take the oath, deposed many things relative to the associations, and thus became witnesses against their brethren ; for which, they were most probably released. But the others underwent many examinations; received much unkind treatment in the high commission and star-chamber; and they continued in prison several years. As this storm was gathering, Mr. Francis Kett, a man of some learning, and master of arts in one of the uersities, was convened before the Bishop of Norwich; and for holding divers detestable opinions, as they are called, he was condemned and burnt near the city of Norwich.+ Such was the outrageous persecution in the reign of Queen Elizabeth!

In the year 1592, the nonconformists had many bold and zealous advocates in both houses of parliament. Mr. Attorney Morrice, a man of distinguished eminence, moved the house of commons to enquire into the inquisition and other proceedings of the bishops, contrary to the honour

• Strype's Whitgift, p. SSI—333.

+ Parallel betwixt Phanatics, p. 11. Edit. 1661: from Stow.

of God, the laws of the realm, and the liberty of the subject; compelling learned and godly ministers upon their own oaths, to accuse themselves, and to deprive, degrade and imprison them upon this accusation.* He also offered two bills to the house; the one against the oath ex officio, the other against the illegal proceedings of the bishops, in which he was warmly supported by Sir Francis Knollys and other famous statesmen. But the queen, by her own arbitrary command, forbad the house to discuss eccle- » siastical matters," and charged the speaker, upon his allegiance, not to read the bills.t Morrice was, at the same time, seized in the house, and carried prisoner to Tutbury castle, where he continued many years.

The parliament having tamely yielded its own liberties and those of the subject, to the tyrannical power of the queen, passed one of the most unjust and inhuman acts for oppression and cruelty, that was ever known in a protestant country. It is entitled " An Act for the Punishment of Persons obstinately refusing to come to Church;" and enacts, " that all persons above the age of sixteen, refusing to come to church ; or persuading others to deny her majesty's authority in causes ecclesiastical; or dissuading them from coming to church; or being found present at any conventicle or meeting under pretence of religion; shall upon conviction be committed to prison without bail, till they shall conform and come to church." But in case such offenders should refuse to subscribe a most debasing recantation, it is further enacted? "That within three months, they shall Abjure The Realm and go info Perpetual Banishment. And if they do not depart within the time appointed; or if they ever return without the queen's license, they shall Suffer Death Without Benefit Of Clergy."% The case of the nonconformists was by this act worse than that of felons. Herein the queen exceeded the tyranny of Henry VIII. For absolute as that monarch was, he contented himself with punishing those who opposed the established- religion by some overt act; but by this new statute, the subjects were obliged, under the heaviest penalty, to make an open profession of the established religion, by a constant attendance on its public service.

The oppression of this statute fell chiefly upon the Brownists, who renounced all communion with the national

• D. Ewes's Journal, p. 474. + MS. Remarks, p. 465.

} D. Ewes's Journal, p. 517.—Burn's Eccl. Law, vol. ii. p. 247, 248. S Warner's Hist, of Eng. vol. ii. p. 465.

church, and were now become very numerous.* There were several considerable persons at their head: as, Messrs. Smyth, Jacob, Ainsworth, Johnson, and Greenwood. Their London congregation being obliged to meet in different places, to hide itself from the bishops' officers, was at length discovered on a Lord's day at Islington, in the very place in which the protestant congregation met in the reign of Queen Mary; when about mly-six were apprehended, and sent two by two to the different prisons about London, where many others had been long confined. The names of most of these persecuted servants of Christ, with the cruel oppressions they endured, are now before me. Tbey suffered a long and miserable confinement ; and under the barbarous usage they met with, many of them died in prison.t Mr. Roger Rippon, who died this year, is said to have been the last of sixteen or seventeen that were murdered in Newgate. Numerous families, as well as individuals, were driven into banishment, while many died in close imprisonment, and others suffered upon the gallows. Among the latter were Mr. Henry Barrow and Mr. John Greenwood. These persons having endured several years close confinement in the Fleet, were tried, condemned, and executed at Tyburn, giving the strongest testimony of their unfeigned piety towards God, and their unshaken loyalty to the queen. Also, Mr. John Penry, a pious and learned minister, was arraigned, condemned, and executed in a most cruel and barbarous manner. Mr. William Dennys was also executed on the same account, at Thetford in Norfolk.t These violent proceedings drove great numbers of the Brownists into Holland, where their leaders, Messrs. Smyth, Johnson, Ainsworth, Jacob, Robinson, and others, by leave of the states, erected churches according to their own views of the gospel, at Amsterdam, Arnheim, Middleburgh, and Leyden.

Several champions now appeared in defence of episcopacy : as, Drs. Bancroft, Bilcon, Bridges, Cosin, and Soarn. These were answered by Bradshaw, Fenner,

• Sir Walter Raleigh declared in parliament, that in their various congregations, they were increased to the number of twenty thousand.—D. Eats's Journal, p. 517.—Townshend's Colltctions, p. 76.

+ Baker's MS. Collec. vol. xiv. p. 311. xv.59—111.

J " These round dealings," says a reverend author, " did a little terrify the rest of the puritans, and checked the furiousness of the wiser sort. But having the Earls of Leicester, Warwick, and Shrewsbury, Lords North and Burleigh, Sir Francis Walsingham, and Sir Francis Knolljs, with others of the nobility, for their honourable patrons, tbey resumed their courage."—Ptirct't Vindication, part i. p. 151.—FoulittUut, ofPMt, p. 61.

Morrice, and others; though the press was shut against the puritans. But Bancroft was their bitterest enemy. In his " Survey" and " Dangerous Positions," he wrote with much fierceness, misrepresentation, and abuse. He reproached the principles and practices of the puritans, as if they were enemies both to church and state, when they only sought, in the most peaceable manner, to promote a reformation of the ecclesiastical discipline and ceremonies, according to their views of the word of God.*

Towards the close of Queen Elizabeth's reign many severities were inflicted upon the nonconformists. Mr. William Smyth was apprehended and cast into prison. Mr. Smythurst was deprived of his living, and treated with great injustice by the high commission. Mr. Rudd was convened before the high commission, suspended, and forced to make a recantation. Mr. Aderster, a Lincolnshire divine, having endured many sufferings by suspension, deprivation, and other censures, in the high commission at Lambeth, was tried at the public assizes, when Judge Anderson treated him worse than a dog. Mr. Clarke,

Sreacher to the society at Lincoln's-inn, London, and [r. Philips, preacher at St'. Saviour's, Southwark, were both summoned before the high commission; when the former was deprived, and the latter suspended and committed to the Gatehouse. Mr. Bradshaw, an excellent divine, was silenced by Archbishop Whitgift; and a great number of ministers in Norfolk were under suspension, and their people greatly oppressed in the ecclesiastical courts. Some, indeed, supposed that the puritans were now vanquished, and their number greatly diminished, by the rigorous execution of the penal laws.t This, however, is

next reign, there were at least fifteen hundred ministers who avowed their nonconformity to the national church. The queen died March 24, 1603, having reigned upwards of forty-four years.

The puritans of these times were not without their failings, being men of like passions with their adversaries; yet, while they opposed the episcopal impositions and oppressions, if they had accomplished their wishes, there is cause to fear, that they would have imposed their own discipline. Their notions of civil and religious liberty were confused, and their principles and behaviour sometimes rigid; yet

contrary to matter of fact.

• MS. Remarks, p. 461. + Fuller's Church Hist. b. ix. p. 233.

they were men eminent for piety, devotion, and zeal in the cause of Christ. The suspensions and deprivations of this long reign are said to amount to several thousands.* But, while the nonconformists were thus harassed, the church and the nation were in a most deplorable state. Great numbers of churches, in all parts of the country, were without ministers; and among those who professed to be ministers, about three thousand were mere readers, who could not preach at all. And under pretence of maintaining order and uniformity in the church, popery, immorality, and ungodliness were every where promoted: so that while the zealous prelates pretended to be building up the church of England, they were evidently undermining the church of God.t

Sect. III.

From the Death of Queen Elizabeth, to the Death of King James I.

King James was thirty-six years old when he came to the crown of England, having reigned in Scotland from his infancy. His majesty's behaviour in Scotland had raised too high the expectations of the puritans: they relied upon his education, his subscribing the covenant, his professed kindness for the suffering nonconformists, and his repeated declarations. He had declared in the general assembly at Edinburgh, with his hands lifted up to heaven, " That he praised God that he was born to be king of the purest kirk in the world. As for our neighbour kirk of England," said he, " their service is an evil-said mass in English. They want nothing of the mass but the liftings."t The king had given great offence to the English bishops, by saying, " that their order smelled vilely of popish pride; that they were a principal branch of the pope, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh; that the Book of Common Prayer was the English mass-book ; and that the surplice, copes, and ceremonies were outward badges of popery."§ The expectations of the puritans were, therefore, highly

* Neal's Puritans, vol. i. p. 511.—The number of clergy suspended and deprived for nonconformity was, according to Hume, very great, and comprehended at one time a third of all the ccclesiastici in the kingdom I! —Hitt. of Eng. vol. v. p. 337.

+ MS. Remarks, p. 411.

% Caldcrwood's Hist, of Scotland, p. 256. S MS. Remarks, p. 535.

raised; and upon the king's accession, they took fresh courage, omitted some things in the public service, threw aside the surplice, and rejected the unprofitable ceremonies. During his majesty's progress to London, they presented their millenary petition, subscribed by above 1000 pious and able ministers, 750 of whom were out of twenty-five counties.* It is entitled " The humble Petition of the Ministers of the Church of England, desiring Reformation of certain ceremonies and abuses of the Church." They observe, " that they being tnore than 1000 ministers, groaning under the burden of human rites and ceremonies, with one consent, threw themselves at his royal feet, for a reformation in the church service, ministry, livings, and discipline."+ But amidst all their hopes, many of them rejoiced with trembling; while James himself had, properly speaking, no other religion, than what flowed from a principle which he called kingcrafl.t to be a sufficient punishment for the sin of nonconformity. The puritans received the terrible sentence of excommunication, being turned out of the congregation, rendered incapable of sueing for their lawful debts, imprisoned for life, denied christian burial, and, as far as possible, excluded from the kingdom of heaven. Archbishop Bancroft, now at the head of all ecclesiastical affairs, enforced the observance of all the festivals of the church, the use of copes, surplices, caps, hoods, &c. and obliged the clergy to subscribe afresh to Whitgift's three articles, which, by canon xxxvi. they were to declare they did willingly and from their hearts. By these oppressive measures, four hundred ministers were suspended and cast out of their livings ;• some of whom were excommunicated and cast into prison, .while others, to preserve their consciences, were driven into a state of banishment.

Indeed, this soon appeared at the Hampton-court conference. This conference, and the disputants on both sides, were appointed by his majesty. For the church, there were nine bishops and about the same number of dignitaries; but for the puritans, there were only four divines, Dr. Rainolds. Dr. Sparke, Mr. Chadderton, and Mr. Knewstubs. These divines having presented their request of a further reformation, in several particulars,^ towards the conclusion the king arose from his chair, and addressed Dr. Rainolds, saying, " If this be all your party have to say, I will make them conform, or I will hurry them out of the land, or else do worse." And to close the whole, he said, " I will have none of this arguing. Let them conform, and that quickly, or they shall hear of it."|| Such was the royal logic of the new monarch ! This conference, observes the judicious historian, was only a blind to introduce episcopacy into Scotland.i The conduct of the king, who bore down all before him, was highly gratifying to the dignified prelates. Besides other instances of palpable flattery, Archbishop Whitgift said, " He was verily persuaded the king spoke by the spirit of God."«

* Clark's Lives annexed to Martyr, p. 116.
+ Fuller's Church Hist. b. x. p. 22..
1 Warner's Hist, of Eng. vol. ii. p. 477.

S See Art. Rainolds. U Barlow's Sum of Conference, p. 170, 177.

t Rapin's Hist, of Eng. vol. ii. p. 162.

Welwood's Memoirs, p. 21.—Bishop Bancroft, falling on his knees before the king, on this occasion, and with his eyes raised to him, said, " I protest my heart melteth for joy, that Almighty God, of his singular mercy, has given us such a king, as since Christ's time hath not been."— Moshcim'i Ecd. Uitt. vol. v. p. 386.

The above mock conference, as it is justly called, taught the puritans what to expect. The threatened storm soon overtook them. The persecuting prelates having received new life, presently renewed their tyrannical proceedings. Mr. Richard Rogers, of Wethersfield in Essex, a divine of incomparable worth, and six other ministers, were convened before the archbishop, and, refusing the oath ex officio, were all suspended. They were cited to appear before him a second time; but the archbishop died on the very day of their appearance. Whitgift, according to Fuller, was one of the worthiest men the church of England ever enjoyed.* Mr. Strype observes, that he was equal to both his predecessors, Parker and Grindal, in right godly and episcopal endowments; and that great wisdom, courage, and gentleness accompanied all his orders.t He was, however, an unfeeling and a relentless persecutor, and extravagantly fond of outward splendour, usually travelling with a most magnificent retinue.}

Dr. Richard Bancroft having acquitted himself so much to the king's satisfaction, in the conference at Hamptoncourt, was thought the fittest person to succeed Whitgift in the chair of Canterbury.^ He trod in the steps of his predecessor in all the iniquities of persecution. He entered upon the work where Whitgift concluded, and immediately convened Mr. Rogers and his brethren before him. They endured continual molestations for a long time, having many expensive journies to London. Mr. Rogers was cited also before the Bishop of London, who protested M by the help of Jesus, that he would not leave one nonconformable minister in all his diocese;" but his death soon after put an end to his career. Mr. Baynes, the excellent lecturer at Cambridge, was silenced, and his lecture put down. Dr. Taylor was suspended from his ministry. Mr. Hilder

• Church Hist. b. x. p. 25. + Life of Parker, Pref. p. 5.

\ His train sometimes consisted of 1000 horse. The archbishop being once at Dover, attended by five hundred horse, one hundred of which were his own servants, many of them wearing chains of gold, a person of distinction then arriving from Rome, greatly wondered to see an English archbishop with so splendid a retinue. But seeing him the following sabbath in the cathedral of Canterbury, attended by the above magnificent train, with the dean, prebendaries, and preachers, in their surplices and scarlet hoods; and hearing the music of organs, cornets, and sacbuts, be was seized with admiration, and said, " That the people at Rome were led in blindness, being made to believe, that in England there was neither archbishop, nor bishop, nor cathedral, nor any ecclesiastical government; but that all were pulled down. But be protested, that unless it were in the pope't chapel, he never saw a more solemn sight, or heard a more heavenly sound."—Paules Life of Whitgift, p. 104—106.

$ Granger's Biog. Hist. vol. i. p. 340.

sham was suspended a third time for nonconformity; and many others suffered the like extremity.

Numerous congregations being deprived of their zealous and faithful pastors, the distressed people presented a petition to the king, in behalf of their suffering ministers; which, because it was presented while his majesty was hunting, he was exceedingly displeased. The poor puritan ministers were now persecuted in every quarter, some of them being suspended, and others deprived of their livings.* And while the bishops were highly commended for suspending or depriving all who could not conform, Sir Richard Knightly, Sir Valentine Knightly, Sir Edward Montague, and some others, presented a petition to the king in behalf of the suffering ministers in Northamptonshire; for which they were summoned before the council, and told, that what they had done " tended to sedition, and was little less than treason."t

The king now issued two proclamations, intimating in the one, what regard he would have to the tender consciences of the papists; but in the other, that he would not allow the least indulgence to the tender consciences of the puritans.t In his majesty's long speech, at the opening of the first session of parliament, he said, " I acknowledge the Roman " church to be our mother church, although defiled with " some infirmities and corruptions;" and added, " I would " for my own part be content to meet them in the mid" waybut spoke with great indignation against the puritans.^ And many of the ministers still refusing to conform, the king issued another proclamation, dated July 10,1604, allowing them to consider of their conformity till the end of November following: but in case of their refusal, he would have them all deprived, or banished out of the kingdom.||

Most of the bishops and clergy in the convocation which sat with the above parliament, were very zealous against the puritans. Bishop Rudd was, indeed, a noble exception. He spoke much in their praise, and exposed the

of canons passed both houses, and was afterwards ratified by the king s letters patent, under his great seal.i By these canons, new hardships were laid upon the oppressed puritans. Suspensions and deprivations were now thought not

Among the painful sufferers at this time, were Mr. Maunsel, minister of Yarmouth, and Mr. Lad, a merchant of the same place. For holding a supposed conventicle, they were cited before the high commission at Lambeth, and, refusing the oath ex officio, were cast into prison. When they were brought to the bar, Nicholas Fuller, esq. a bencher of Gray's-inn, and a learned man in his profession, was their counsel; who, for pleading their cause, was cast into prison, where he continued to the day of his death. Mr. Wotton and Mr. Cleaver, two learned and useful divines, were suspended for nonconformity. Mr. Rush, fellow of Christ's college, Cambridge, was convened and required to make a public recantation. Mr. Randall Bates, a pious and excellent preacher, was committed to the Gatehouse, where, after a long and miserable confinement, he died under the hardships of the prison. These severities drove many learned ministers and their followers out of the kingdom, when they retired to Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Leyden and other places. Among these were Dr.William Ames and Mr. Robert Parker, both divines of distinguished eminence.

Indeed, Archbishop Bancroft incessantly harassed and plagued the puritans, to bring them to an exact conformity. On account of his rigorous proceedings, great numbers

* Sion's Plea, p. 75.—MS, Remarks, p. 585.—Some of oor high-church historians, it is acknowledged, have diminished the number to forty-fire, others to forty-nine, evidently with a design to remove the odium from the persecuting prelates.—Heytint Hilt, of Pres. p. S76-—Spotiswood'I Hift. of Scotland, p. 479. Edit. 1677.

resolved to transport themselves to Virginia, and settle in that uncivilized country, where they could enjoy the blessing of religious liberty. Some having departed for the new settlement, and the archbishop seeing many more ready for the voyage, obtained his majesty's proclamation, forbidding them to depart without the king's license. The arbitrary court was apprehensive this sect would in the end become too numerous and powerful in America.* The distressed puritans must not enjoy liberty of conscience at home, nor remove to another country, even among uncivilized pagans, where they could enjoy it.—The high commission, says Bishop Kennet, began now to swell into a grievance, of which the parliament complained. Every man must conform to the episcopal church, and quit his opinion or his safety. That court was the touch-stone, to try whether men were current. " This," he adds, " was the beginning of that mischief, which made such a bloody tincture in both kingdoms, as never will be got out of the bishops' lawn sleeves"*

The parliament, in 1610, was deeply concerned about these proceedings. In their petition to the king, they say, u That divers painful and learned pastors, who have long travelled in the work of the ministry, with good fruit and blessing of their labours, who were ready to subscribe to the true christian faith and doctrine of sacraments, for not conforming in some points of ceremony, and refusing the subscription directed by the late canons, have been removed from their ecclesiastical livings, being their freehold, and debarred from all means of maintenance, to the great grief of sundry of your majesty's well-affected subjects."!; And in a memorable speech during this parliament, it was said, " The depriving, degrading, and imprisoning learned and godly ministers, whom God hath furnished with most heavenly graces, is the crying sin of the land, most provoking to God, and most grievous to the subjects."^ A bill , was, therefore, introduced against pluralities and nonresidence; another ' against canonical subscription; a third against scandalous ministers; a fourth against the oath ex officio; and they all passed the commons.| An address was also presented to the king, entitled u An humble supplication for toleration and liberty to enjoy and

* Rapin's Hist, of Eng. vol. ii. p. 176.

+ Kennet's Hist, of Eng. vol. ii. p. 681, 682.

t Calamy's Church and Dissenters, p. 131. S Ibid- P- 137

Ii MS. Remarks, p. 629.

observe the ordinances of Jesus Christ in the ministration of his churches, in lieu of human constitutions." It was published by those who apprehended the church of England to be fast approaching towards the church of Rome.* But all these endeavours proved ineffectual to obtain a further reformation of the church.+ Archbishop Bancroft died November 10, 1610, and was succeeded by Dr. George Abbot, an avowed enemy to all the superstitions of popery.}

King James, to shew his zeal against heresy, had now an opportunity of exercising it upon two of his own subjects ; who, in the year 1611, were burnt alive for their heretical opinions. One was Bartholomew Legatt, a native of the county of Essex. He was a man of a bold spirit, a fluent tongue, well skilled in the scriptures, and of an unblameable conversation. He denied the divinity of Christ, and a plurality of persons in the Godhead. The king himself, and several of the bishops, conferred with him, and endeavoured to convince him of his errors.^ Having continued a long time prisoner in Newgate, he was at length brought before the king, many of the bishops, and many learned divines, in the consistory of St. Paul's; where he was declared a contumacious and obdurate heretic, and delivered over to the secular power. The king having signed a writ de heretico comburendo to the sheriffs of London, he was carried to Smithfield, March 18, and, before an immense number of spectators, was burnt to ashes. Pardon was offered him at the stake if he would have recanted, but he firmly refused.!

Mr. Edward Whiteman of Burton-upon-Trent, was, at

• MS. Chronology, vol. ii. p. 619. (2.)

+ The puritans were now oppressed by every means that could be devised. Mrs. Venahles, a lady of great liberality and exemplary piety, being deeply concerned for the numerous persecuted servants of Christ, bequeathed in her last will s£5000, to be distributed among the suffering nonconformist ministers. This was no sooner known at court, than the money was seized, anil given to such ministers as were conformable. Such was the fraud and barbarity of the times I!—MS. Remarks, p. 585.

J Bishop Kennet styles Archbishop Bancroft " a sturdy piece," and says, " he proceeded with rigour, severity and wrath, against the puritans." —Rennet's Hist, of Eng. vol. ii. p. 665.

^ The attempt of the king to convince Legatt having utterly failed, he arose in a passion from his chair, and, giving him a kick with bis royal foot, said : " Away, base fellow, it shall never be said, that one stayeth in my -presence, that hath never prayed to our Saviour for seven years."—Fuller's Church Hist. b. z. p. 62.

|f He bad a brother, called Thomas Legatt, who, at the same time, for holding certain heretical opinions, as they are called, was committed to Newgate, where he died under the pressures of his confinement.—J snap's Discoversof Anabaptists, p. 77. Edit. 1623.

tbe same time, convicted of heresy by Dr. Neile, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and burnt at Lichfield, April 11. In the king's warrant for his execution, he is charged with no less than sixteen distinct heresies, among which arc those of the Ebionites, Corinthians, Arians, and Anabaptists, and other heretical, execrable, and unheard-of opinions. Some of the opinions imputed to him savoured of vanity, superstition, and enthusiasm; and he was certainly an object more deserving of compassion than of punishment.* But, to gratify the wishes of his enemies, he must pass through the fire.—There was another condemned to be burnt for similar heresies ; but the constancy of the above sufferers having greatly moved the pity of the spectators, he was left to linger out a miserable life in Newgate. t

Many of the puritans being driven into exile, continued a number of years in a foreign land. They raised congregations and formed christian churches, according to their views of the New Testament. Mr. John Robinson, pastor of the church at Leyden, first struck out the congregational or independent form of church government. Afterwards, about a hundred of his church transplanted themselves to America, and laid the foundation ot the colony of New England. But some of the worthy exiles ventured at length to return* home. Mr. Henry Jacob having espoused the sentiments of the independents, returned about the year 1616; and communicating to his friends his design of forming a separate churcn, like those in Holland, they, seeing no prospect of any reformation of the national church, signified their approbation. They spent a day in solemn devotion, to implore the divine blessing upon the undertaking ; and having made an open confession of their faitli in Christ, they joined hands, and convenanted with each other to walk together in all the ordinances of God, as far as he had already made known to them, or should hereafter make known to them. Mr. Jacob was chosen pastor by the suffrage of the brotherhood, and others to the office of deacons. This was the first Independent church in England.

During this year, his majesty, by the advice of the bishops, issued his royal directions for a better conformity to the established church. He required " That all students who took their degrees, should subscribe to the thirty-sixth canon.—That all scholars should wear their scholastical

• Narration of tbe burning of Legattand Whitman, Edit. 1651. " + Fntlrr't Church Hut. b. z. p. 62—64.

habits.—That no one be allowed to preach without perfect conformity.—And that no preacher shall maintain any point of doctrine not allowed by the church of England."*

The distressed puritans felt the iron rod of their cruel persecutors in various parts of the country. Messrs. Ball, Nicholls, Paget, and many others, in the diocese of Chester, were often cited before the high commission, when attachments were issued to apprehend them, and commit them to prison. They were obliged to conceal themselves, and heavy fines were laid upon them for their nonappearance, and were aggravated from one court day to another; till their case was returned into the exchequer, when, to their unspeakable injury, they were obliged to compound. Mr. Bradshaw had his house searched by the bishops' pursuivants, and he was suspended. Mr. John Wilkinson was several times spoiled of his goods, and kept many years in prison by the furious prelates. Mr. Hildersham was suspended a fourth and a fifth time. He was afterwards summoned before the high commission, and, refusing the oath ex officio, committee! first to the Fleet, then to the King's-bench, where he continued a long time. Having obtained his liberty, he was censured in the ecclesiastical court, upon the most glaring false witness, and fined 2,000, pronounced excommunicate, degraded from his ministry, ordered to be taken and cast into prison, required to make a public recantation in such form as the court should appoint, and condemned in costs of suit. His two friends, Mr. Dighton and Mr. Holt, being committed, one to the Fleet, the other to the Gatehouse, were fined £ 10,000 each, excommunicated, ordered to be publicly denounced, to make their submission in three different places, con. demned in costs of suit, and sent back to prison. The learned Mr. John Selden, for publishing his " History of Tithes," was summoned before the high commission, and obliged to sign a recantation.t

To prevent the growth of puritanism, the king, in the year 1G18, published his " Declaration for Sports on the Lord's-day," commonly called the Book of Sports. It was procured by the bishops, and all ministers were enjoined to approve of it, and read it in the public congregations ; and those who refused were brought into the high commission,

• Heylin's Life of Land, p. 72.

+ Mr. Selden was justly denominated the glory of England for his uncommon learning. Archbishop Usher used to say, " I am not worthy to carry hut books after him."

suspended and imprisoned. " It was designed," says Bishop Ken net, "as a trap to catch men of tender consciences, and as a means of promoting the ease, wealth and grandeur of the bishops."*

The king, at the opening of the parliament in 1620, made this solemn declaration: " / mean" said he, " not to compel any man's conscience ; for J ever protested against it A But his majesty soon forgot his own declaration; and to increase the distress of the puritans, he set forth his directions to all the clergy, forbidding them to preach on the deep points of controversy betwixt the Arminians and Calvinists. The puritans had hitherto suffered only for refusing the ceremonies, but now their doctrine itself became an offence. Most Calvinists were now excluded from court preferments. The way to rise in the chu,rch, was to preach up the absolute power of the king, to declaim against the rigours of Calvinism, and to speak favourably of popery. Those who scrupled were neglected, and denominated doctrinal puritans; but having withstood all the arbitrary proceedings adopted both in church and state, they will be esteemed by posterity, as the glory of the English nation 4

Many of the puritans now groaned under the oppressive measures of the prelates. Mr. Collins was cast into prison for nonconformity. Though he was not suffered to preach in the churches, he preached to the malefactors in prison, and there procured himself a subsistence by correcting the press.§ Mr. Knight of Pembroke college, Oxford, was cited up to London, and committed to the Gatehouse. Mr. Peck having catechised his family, and sung a psalm in his own house, when several of his neighbours were present, they were all required by Bishop Harsnet to do penance and recant. Those who refused were immediately excommunicated and condemned in heavy costs. The citizens of Norwich afterwards complained of this cruel oppression to parliament. The celebrated Mr. Dod was often cited before , the bishops, and was four times suspended. Mr. Whately was convened before the high commission, and required to make a public recantation. Mr. Whiting was prosecuted

commission, expecting to be deprived of considerable

* Several of the bishops, however, declared their opinion against the Book of Sport*. And Archbishop Abbot being at Croydon the day on which it was ordered to be read in the churches, expressly forbad it to be read there.—KcnneVs Hist, of Eng. vol. ii. p. 709.

+ MS. Chronology, vol. ii. p. 667.(13.) % Neal's Puritans, vol.ii. p. 128.

$ Wood's Athena) Oiou. vol. ii. p. 794,

before the high

estates; but, happily, while the cause was pending, King James died, and the prosecution was dropped. The king finished his course March 27, 1625, not without suspicion of having been poisoned by the Duke of Buckingham.* He was a mere pedant, without judgment, courage, or steadiness, being the very scorn of the age. His reign was a continued course of mean practices.t He invaded the liberties of his subjects; endangered the religion of his country; was ever grasping at arbitrary power; i and, in a word, liberty of conscience was totally suppressed.^ ||

Sect. IV.

From the Death of King James I. to the Death of King Charles J.

When King Charles came to the crown, he was at first thought favourable to puritanism. His tutor, and all his court, were puritanically inclined. Dr. Preston, one of the leading puritans, came in a coach to London with the King and the Duke of Buckingham, which gave great offence to the contrary party. His majesty was so overcharged with grief for the death of his father, that he wanted the comfort of so wise and great a man.i The puritans, however, soon found that no favour was to be expected. The unjust and inhuman proceedings of the Council-table, the StarChamber, and the High Commission, during this reign,

* Harris's Life of James I. p. 337. Edit. 1753.
+ Burnet's Hist, of bis Times, vol. i. p. 17.
i Bennet's Mem. of Reformation, p. 147.

^ Home's Hist, of Eng. vol. vi. p. 116.—1| Bishop Land observes of James, that the sweetness of bis nature was scarcely to be paralleled, and little less than a miracle. Clemency, mercy, justice, and peace, were all eminent in him; and he was the most learned and religious prince that England ever knew. On the contrary, the learned Mosheim affirms, " that " as the desire of unlimited power and authority was the reigning passion " in the heart of this monarch, so all his measures, whether of a civil or " ecclesiastical nature, were calculated to answer the purposes of his " ambition. He was the bitterest enemy of the doctrine and discipline of " the puritans, to which be had been in bis youth most warmly attached ; " the most inflexible and ardent patron of the Arminians, in whose ruin " and condemnation in Holland he had been singularly instrumental; and

tbe most zealous defender of episcopal government, against which be had " more than once expressed himself in the strongest terms." Though he was no papist, he was certainly very much inclined to popery, and " was " excessively addicted to hunting and drinking."—Breviate of Laud, p. 5. —Mosheim's Eccl. Hitt. Toi. p. 385, 391, 392.—Harris's Life ofjamcsl. p. 45, 66.

t Burnet's Hiit.of his Time, vol. i. p. 19.

are unparalleled. The two former were become courts of law, to determine matters of right; and courts of revenue, to bring money into the treasury. The council-table, by proclamations, enjoined upon the people what was not enjoined by law; and the star-chamber punished the disobedience of those proclamations by heavy fines and imprisonment. The exorbitances of this court were such, that there were very few persons of quality who did not suffer more or less, by the weight of its censures and judgments. And the high commission became justly odious, not only by meddling with things not within its cognizance, but by extending its sentences and judgments to a degree that was unjustifiable, and by treating the common law, and the professors of it, with great contempt. From an ecclesiastical court for the reformation of manners, it became a court of revenue, imposing heavy fines upon the subjects.*

These courts made strange havoc among the puritans, detaining them long in prison, without bringing them to trial, or acquainting them with the cause of their commitment. Their proceedings were, in some respects, worse than the Romish Inquisition; because they suspended, degraded, excommunicated, and imprisoned multitudes of learned and pious ministers, without the breach of any established law. While the heaviest penalties were inflicted upon the protestant nonconformists, the papists lived without molestation. Indeed, the king gave express orders " To forbear all manner of proceedings against Roman catholics, and that all pains and penalties to which they were liable, should cease."+

The Arminian tenets, warmly supported by Bishop Laud and his brethren, now began rapidly to gain ground. The points of controversy became so much the subject of public discussion, that the king issued his royal proclamation, threatening to proceed against all who should maintain any new opinions, contrary to the doctrines as by law established. Though this proclamation appeared to be in favour of the Calvinists, the execution of it being in the hands of Laud and his brethren, it was turned against them, and made use of to silence them; while it gave an uncontrouled liberty to the tongues and pens of the Arminians.f Many were, indeed, of opinion, that Bishops Laud and Neile procured this injunction on purpose to oppress the

« Clarendon'» Hiitory, vol. i. p. 68, 69, 2«2,283.
+ Rushworth's Collections, vol. i. p. I7S.
t Ibid. p. 416, 417.

Calvinists, who should venture to break it, while they should cone at the disobedience of the contrary party. It is certain, the Calvinists were prosecuted for disobeying the proclamation, while the Arminians were tolerated and countenanced.* The puritans, who wrote in defence of the received doctrines of the thirty-nine articles, were censured in the high commission, and their books suppressed; and when they ventured to preach or dispute upon those points, they were suspended, imprisoned, forced to recant, or banished to a foreign land.t

The king now usurped an arbitrary power, much more extensive than any of his predecessors. Henry VIII. did what he pleased by the use of parliament; but Charles evidently designed to rule without parliament.} To convince the people that it was their duty to submit to a monarch of such principles, the clergy were employed to preach up the doctrine of passive obedience and nonresistance. Dr. Manwaring preaching before his majesty, said, " The king is not bound to observe the laws of '' the realm, concerning the subject's rights and liberties, " but that his royal will and pleasure, in imposing taxes *' without consent of parliament, doth oblige the subject's " conscience on pain of eternal damnation.' S

The church being governed by similar arbitrary and illegal methods, it was easy to foresee what the nonconformists had to expect. They were exceedingly harassed and persecuted in every corner of the land. In the year 1626, Mr. Brewer was censured in the high commission, and committed to prison, where he continued fourteen years. Mr. Smart, prebend of Durham, was many times convened before his ecclesiastical judges; then sent to the high commission at York, and kept a prisoner nine months. He was next sent to the high commission at Lambeth ; then returned to York, fined ^£500, and ordered to recant; for refusing which, he was fined a second time, excommunicated, deprived, degraded, and committed to prison, where he remained eleven or twelve years, suffering

* Rnpin's Hist. vol. ii. p. 35S.

+ Prynne's Canterburies Doome, p. 161.

1 Rapin's Hist, vol. ii. p. 259.

^ Manwaring, for this sermon, was sentenced by the house of lords to pay a tine of a thousand pounds, to make a public submission at the bar of both houses, to be imprisoned during the pleasure of the lords, and declared incapable of holding any ecclesiastical dignity : nevertheless, he was so much a court favourite, be obtained the king's pardon, with a good benefice, and afterwards a bishopric—Ibid.

immense damages. These severities were inflicted by the instigation of Laud, soon after made Bishop of London, and prime minister to his majesty.* This furious prelate was no sooner exalted, than he made strange havoc among the churches. Agreeable to the king's injunctions, many excellent lecturers were put down, and such as preached against Arminianism or the popish ceremonies, were suspended; among whom were Drs. Stoughton, Sibbs, Taylor, and Gouge, with Messrs. White of Dorchester, Rogers of Dedlmm, Rogers of Wethersfield, Hooker of Chelmsford, White of Knightsbridge, Archer, Edwards, Jones, Ward, Saunders, Salisbury, Foxley, William Martin, and James Gardiner.t Mr. Henry Burton was brought before the council-table, and the high commission. He was afterwards apprehended by a pursuivant, then suspended and committed to the Fleet. Mr. Nathaniel Bernard was suspended, excommunicated, fined J€ 1,000, condemned in costs of suit, and committed to New Prison, where he was treated with great barbarity; and refusing to make a public recantation, after languishing a long time, he died through the rigour of his confinement. But the unparalleled cruelty of this prelate most appeared in the terrible sentence inflicted upon Dr. Alexander Leighton. He was seized by a warrant from the high commission; dragged before Bishop Laud ; then, without examination, carried to Newgate, where he was treated a long time with unexampled barbarity. When brought to trial before that arbitrary court, the furious prelate desired the court to inflict the heaviest sentence that could be inflicted upon him. He was, therefore, condemned to be degraded from his ministry, to have his ears cut, his nose slit, to be branded in the face, whipped at a post, to stand in the pillory, to pay £10,000, and to suffer perpetual imprisonment. This horrible sentence being pronounced, Laud pulled off his hat, and holding up his hands, gave thanks to God, who had given him the victory over his enemies.t

During these cruel proceedings, Mr. Palmer and Mr. Udney, two lecturers in Kent, were silenced. Mr. Angier was suspended.^ Mr. Huntley was grievously censured in the high commission, and committed to prison, where he continued a long time. Mr. John Workman was

• Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 78. + Ibid. p. 362, 37S.

t For an account of the barbarous execution of this shocking sentence, tee Art. Leighton.

S Calamy's Account, vol. ii. p. 395.

suspended, excommunicated, condemned in costs of snif, cast into prison, and obliged to make a public recantation at three different places. Mr. Crowder was committed close prisoner to Newgate for sixteen weeks, then deprived of his living, without there being any charge, witness, or other proof brought against him. Many others were prosecuted and deprived.* Bishop Laud being made chancellor of Oxford, carried his severities to the uersity. He caused Mr. Hill to make a public recantation; Messrs. Ford, Thorne, and Hodges to be expelled from the uersity ; the proctors to be deprived for receiving their appeal; and Drs. Prideaux and Wilkinson to be sharply admonished. Mr. William Hobbs, fellow of Trinity college, having preached against falling from grace; and Mr. Thomas Cook of Brazen-nose college, having in bis Latin sermon used certain expressions against the Arminians, they were both enjoined public recantations. Dr. Prideaux, Dr. Burgess, Mr. White, Mr. Madye, with some others, suffered on the same account, t

By the unfeeling persecutions of the bishops, the puritans were driven from one diocese to another, and many of them obliged to leave the kingdom, and seek their bread in a foreign land. Messrs. Higginson, Skelton, Williams, Wilson, Wheelwright, Philips, Lathorp, Hooker, Stone, Cotton, with many others, fled to New England. Many of these divines, previous to their departure, were harassed, prosecuted, and cruelly censured by the ruling prelates.

The distressed puritans who remained at home, presented a petition to his majesty, in which they say, " We are not a little discouraged and deterred from preaching those saving doctrines of God's free grace in election and predestination which greatly confirm our faith of eternal salvation, and fervently kindle our love to God, as the seventeenth article expressly mentioneth. So we are brought into great strait, either of incurring God's heavy displeasure if we do not faithfully discharge our embassage, in declaring the whole council of God; or the danger of being censured as violaters of your majesty's acts, if we preach these constant doctrines of our church, and confute the opposite Pelagian and Arminian heresies, both boldly preached and printed without the least censure."! This

» Wharton's Troubles of laud, vol. i. p. 519.

+ Prynoe's Cant. Doome, p. 173, 176.—Roshworth's Collec. vol, ii. p. 383. I Prjnne's Cant. Doome, p. 165.

appears, however, to have been followed with no good effect. By silencing so many learned and useful ministers, there was a great scarcity of preachers, and a famine of the word of God in every corner of the land ; while ignorance, superstition, profaneness, and popery, every where increased.*

The sufferings of the people for want of the bread of life continually increasing, a number of ministers and gentlemen formed a scheme to promote preaching in the country, by setting up lectures in the different market towns. To defray the expence, a sum of money was raised by voluntary contribution, for purchasing such impropriations as were in the hands of the laity, the profits of which were to be divided into salaries of forty or fifty pounds a year, for the support of the lecturers. The money was deposited in the hands of the following persons, as Feoffees : Dr. George, Dr. Sibbs, Dr. Offspring, and Mr. Davenport, of the clergy; Ralph Eyre, Simon Brown, C. Sherland, and John White, esqrs.; and Messrs. John Gearing, Richard Davis, George Harwood, and Francis Bridges, citizens of London. Most people thought the design was very laudable, and wished them good success; but Bishop Laud looking upon the undertaking with an evil and a jealous eye, as if it was likely to become the great nursery of puritanism, applied to the king, and obtained an information against all the feoffees in the exchequer. The feoffment was, therefore, cancelled, their proceedings declared illegal, the impropriations already purchased, amounting to five or six thousand pounds, were confiscated to the king, and the feoffees themselves fined in the starchamber.t

If the persecuted puritans at any time ventured to except against the proceedings of this fiery prelate, they were sure to feel his indignation. Mr. Hayden having spoken against them from the pulpit, was driven out of the diocese of Exeter, but afterwards apprehended by Bishop Harsnet, who took from him his horse, his money, and all his papers, and caused him to be shut up in close prison for thirteen weeks. His lordship then sent him to the high commission, when he was deprived, degraded, and fined, for having preached against superstitious decorations and images in churches. Mr. Hayden venturing afterwards to preach occasionally, was again apprehended by Bishop Laud,

who sent him first to the Gatehouse, then to Bridewell, where he was whipped and kept to hard labour; then confined in a cold dark hole during the whole of winter, being chained to a post in the middle of the room, with irons on his hands and feet, having no other food than bread and water, and a pad of straw to lie on. Before his release, he was obliged to take an oath, and give bond, to preach no more, but depart from the kingdom, and never return. Henry Shirfield, esq. a bencher of Lincoln's-inn, and recorder of Salisbury, was tried in the star-chamber, for taking down some painted glass from one of the windows of St. Edmund's church, Salisbury. These pictures were extremely ridiculous and superstitious.* The taking down of the glass was agreed upon at a vestry, when six justices of the peace were present. Towards the close of his trial, Bishop Laud stood up, and moved the court, that Mr. Shirfield might be fined J-\ ,000, removed from his recorder" ship, committed to the Fleet till he paid the fine, and then bound to his good behaviour. The whole of this heavy sentence was inflicted upon him, excepting that the fine was mitigated to J*s500.t

In the year 1633, upon the death of Archbishop Abbot, Laud was made Archbishop of Canterbury; when he and several of his brethren renewed their zeal in the persecution of the puritans.} Numerous lecturers were silenced, and their lectures put down. Mr. Rathband and Mr. Blackcrby, two most excellent divines, were often silenced, and driven from one place to another. Mr. John Budle, rector of Barnston, and Mr. Throgmorton, vicar of Mawling, were prosecuted in the high commission.^ Mr. Alder and Mr. Jessey were both silenced, the latter for not observing the ceremonies, and removing a crucifix.|| Mr. John Vincent was continually harassed for nonconformity. He was so driven from place to place, that though he had many

• There were in this window seven pictures of God the Father in the form of little old men, in a blue and red coat, with a pouch by his ride. One of them represented him creating the sun and moon with a pair of compasses ; others as working upon the six days creation ; and at last as sitting in an elbow chair at rest. Many of the people, upon their going in and ont of the church, did reverence to this window, because, as they laid, the Lord their God was there.—Prynnc's Cant. Doome, p. 102.

+ Ibid. p. 103.—Rushworth's Collec. vol. ii. p. 153—156.

J Archbishop Abbot, who succeeded Bancroft, is said to have imitated the moderation of Wbitgift; and that Laud, who succeeded Abbot, imitated the wrath of Bancroft.—Kennel's Hist, of Eng. vol. ii. p. 665, note.

4 Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p.526—529.

|| Calamy's Contin. vol. i. p. 46.

children, not two of them were born in the same county. Messrs. Angel, Buckley, Saunders, Bridges, Roberts, Erbery, Cradock, Newport, and others, were suspended, and some of them driven out of the country.* Mr. John Carter was censured by Bishop Wren, but death soon after delivered him from all his troubles. Messrs. Peters, Davenport, Nye,+ and others, to escape the fury of the storm, fled to Holland. Mr. Peters, previous to his departure, was apprehended by Archbishop Laud, suspended, and committed for some time to New Prison. Many others were driven to New England, among whom were Messrs. Norton, Burr, Shepard, Sherman, and Nathaniel Ward, who was deprived and excommunicated by the archbishop.

During this year the king, by the recommendation of Laud, republished the " Book of Sports," for the encouragement of recreations and pastimes on the Lord's day. This opened a flood-gate to all manner of licentiousness, and became the instrument of unspeakable oppression to great numbers of his majesty's best subjects. The ruling prelates, though unauthorized by law, required the clergy to read it before the public congregation. This the puritans refused; for which they felt the iron rod of their tyrannical oppressors. Dr. Staunton, Mr. Chauncey, and Mr. Thomas, for refusing to read the book, were suspended.} Mr. Fairclough was often cited into the ecclesiastical courts. Mr. Tookie was turned out of his living. Mr. Cooper was suspended, and continued under the ecclesiastical censure seven years. Mr. Sanger was imprisoned at Salisbury. Mr. Moreland, rector of Hamsted-Marshall in Berkshire, was suspended and deprived of his living.^ Mr. Snelling was suspended, deprived, excommunicated, and cast into prison, where he continued till the meeting of the long parliament. Dr. Chambers was silenced, sequestered, and cast into prison.|| Messrs. Culmer, Player, and Hieron being suspended, waited upon the archbishop, jointly requesting absolution from the unjust censure; when his grace said, " If you know not how to obey, I know not how to grant your favour," and dismissed them from his presence. Mr. Wilson was suspended from his office and benefice, and afterwards prosecuted in the high commission. Mr. Wroth and Mr. Erbery from Wales, Mr. Jones from

» Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p. 632, 533. + Calamy's Account, vol. ii. p. 29. - t Clark's Lives, last vol. part i. p. 162. $ MS. Remarks, p. 903.

|{ Calamy's Account and Contin.

Gloucestershire, Mr. Whitfield of Ockham, Mr. Garth of Woversh, Mr. Ward of Pepper-Harrow, Mr. Farrol of Purbright, Mr. Pegges of Weeford, and Mr. Thomas Valentine, minister of Chanont St. Giles, with many others, were brought from various parts of the country, and prosecuted in the high commission.* Mr. Edmund Calamy, Mr. William Bridge, Mr. Thomas Allen, and about thirty, other worthy ministers, for refusing to read the book and observe Bishop Wren's articles, were driven out of the diocese.t And Laud, at the same time, caused upwards of twenty ministers to be fined and expelled from their livings, for not bowing at the name of Jesus.t

Towards the close of this year, William Prynne, esq. a member of Lincoln's-inn, having published a book, entitled " Histrio-mastix; or, the Plays Scourge," exposing the evil of plays, masquerades, &c. was sentenced to have his book burnt by the common hangman, to be put from the bar, to be for ever incapable of his profession, to be turned out of the society of Lincoln's-inn, to be degraded at Oxford, to stand in the pillory at Westminster and Cheapside, to lose both his ears, one in each place, to pay a fine of five thousand pounds, and to suffer perpetual imprisonment.^ Dr. Bastwick, a physician of Colchester, having published a book, entitled Elenchus religionis, papisticce, with an appendix, called Flagellum pontificis and episcoporum Latiaiium, so greatly offended the prelates, by denying the divine right of bishops above that of presbyters, that by the high commission, he was discarded from his profession, excommunicated, fined one thousand pounds, and imprisoned till he should recant. And Mr. Burton having published two sermons against the late innovations, entitled " For God and the King," had his house and study broken open by a serjeant at arms, and his books and papers carried away. He was then suspended, and committed close prisoner to the Fleet, where he remained a long time.

These terrible proceedings made many conscientious nonconformists retire, with their families, to Holland and New England. Mr. Thomas Goodwin, Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs, Mr. William Bridge, Mr. Sydrach Sympson, Mr. Julines Herring, Mr. Samuel Ward, and many others, having

• Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 149, 151, 382.
+ Calamy's Account, vol. ii. p. 5, 476.
1 Huntley'■ Prelates' Usurpations, p. 1C5.
5 Rosbwortb't Collec. vol. ii. p. 233.

endured the cruel oppressions of the prelates, went to Holland. Mr. Herring had been driven from his flock, and several times suspended. Mr. Ward had been suspended, required to recant, condemned in costs of suit, and cast into prison, where he had remained a long time. And Messrs. Mather, Bulkley, Hobert, Symes, Whitfield, Rogers, Partridge, Whiting, Knollys, and Chauncey, withdrew from the storm, and fled to New England. This was no rash adventure. They suffered many hardships by suspension and imprisonment, previous to their departure. Mr. Chauncey was twice prosecuted by the high commission, suspended from his ministry, cast into prison, condemned in costs of suit, and obliged to make a recantation.

While these fled from the storm, others continued to endure the painful conflict. Dr. Stoughton, rector of Aldermanbury, London; Mr. Andrew Moline, curate of St. Swithin's ; Mr. John Goodwin, vicar of St. Stephen's, Coleman-street; and Mr. Viner of St. Lawrence, Old Jewry, were prosecuted for breach of canons. Mr. Turner and Mr. Lindall, with some others, were censured in the high commission. Mr. John Wood, formerly censured in the hiejh commission, and Mr. Sparrowhawke of St. Mary's, Woolnoth, were both suspended for preaching against bowing at the name of Jesus. Dr. Cornelius Burgess and Mr. Wharton suffered in the high commission. Mr. Matthews, rector of Penmayn, was suspended by his diocesan, for preaching against the observance of popish holidays.* Mr. Styles was prosecuted in the ecclesiastical court at York, for omitting the cross in baptism. Mr. Leigh, one of the prebendaries of Lichfield, was suspended for churching refractory women in private, for being averse to the good orders of the church, and for ordering the bell-man to give notice in open market of a sermon. Mr. Kendal of Tuddington, was suspended for preaching a sermon above an hour long, on a sabbath afternoon. Dr. Jenningson of Newcastle, was prosecuted in the high commission, and forced to quit the kingdom, to escape the fury of Laud. Mr. John Jemmet of Berwick, was apprehended by a pursuivant, suspended from the sacred function, and banished from the town, without any article or witness being brought against him; and above twenty other ministers were suspended for nonconformity.t Mr. John Evans was sent to the Gatehouse; Mr. John

• Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p. 535—544. t Prydne's Cut. Doome, p. 3oT, 389, 450.

Vicars was apprehended by a pursuivant, cast into prison, fined, and deprived of his living; and Mr. George Walker was prosecuted in the star-chamber, sequestered, and cast into prison, where he remained till the meeting of the long parliament.

Dr. Pierce, bishop of Bath and Wells, at the same time persecuted the nonconformists without mercy. He drove all the lecturers out of his diocese, and put down their lectures, as factions, and nurseries of puritanism. Upon a reflection on what he had done, he said, " I thank God, I have not one lecturer left in my diocese," hating the very name. He suspended Mr. Davenish of Bridgewater, for preaching a lecture in his own church on a market-day; and having absolved him upon his promise to preach no more, he said, Go thy way, and sin no more, lest a worse thing befal thee. He suspended Mr. Cornish for preaching a funeral sermon in the evening; and he questioned Mr. Thomas Erford for preaching on a revel-day, saying " his text was scandalous to the revel." He sharply reprimanded other ministers for explaining the questions and answers in the catechism, and said, " That was as bad as preaching." For this practice he enjoined Mr. Barret, rector of Barwick, to do public penance.* Dr. Conant, rector of Limington, received much molestation from this prelate, t Mr. Richard Allein, fifty years minister of Dichiat, endured great sufferings under him. And Dr. Chambers was silenced, sequestered, and cast into prison, being harassed several years. t

Bishop Wren of Norwich, having ordered the communion tables in his diocese to be turned into altars, fencing them about with rails, many of the people, to avoid superstition and idolatry, refused to kneel before them. And though they presented themselves on their knees in the chancel, they were refused the communion; and afterwards, for not receiving it, they were excommunicated by this prelate.^ His lordship had no mercy on the puritans. He suspended, deprived, excommunicated,! or otherwise cen

» Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 377, 378.
+ Palmer's Noncon. Mem. vol. i. p. 289.
t Calamy's Account, vol. ii. p. 580, 754.
^ Nalson's Collections, vol. ii. p. 399.

J A minister's son was excommunicated for only repeating the sermon of

his father, who bad been excommunicated.—Rushwurth's Co'.lcc, vol. Ui. p. 181.

pagebreak/>

number were Messrs. William .Leigh, Richard Proud, Jonathan Burr, MatthewBrowning, William Powell, Richard Raymund, John Carter, Robert Peck, William Bridge, William Green, Thomas Scott, Nicholas Beard, Robert Kent, Thomas Allen, John Allen, and John Ward.* Some of them spent their days in silence; others retired into foreign countries; but none were restored without a promise of conformity. This furious prelate, by these severities, drove upwards of three thousand persons to seek their bread in a foreign land.t

About the year 1637, many of the persecuted puritans, to obtain a refuge from the storm, retired to New England ; among whom were Messrs. Fisk, Moxon, Newman, Peck, Ezekel Rogers, and Thomas Larkham.J Mr. Larkham was so followed by continued vexatious prosecutions, that he was a sufferer in almost all the courts in England. He was in the star-chamber and high commission at the same time. And, he said, he was so constanUy hunted by hungry pursuivants, that at last, by the tyranny of the bishops, and the tenderness of his own conscience, he was forced into exile.s.

While these ravages were made in the churches, numerous pious ministers and their flocks being torn asunder, if any attempted to separate from the national church, the jealous archbishop was sure to have his eye upon them. Mr. Lamb was accordingly prosecuted in the high commission, and cast into prison. He was confined in most of the jails about London. Mr. Wilson and Mr. Cornwall were committed to Maidstone jail. Many others were excommunicated and imprisoned by the archbishop.

This tyrannical arch-prelate suspended one Mr. Warren, a schoolmaster, for refusing conformity, and for reading only books on divinity among his scholars. Mr. Ephraim Hewet, minister of Wroxall in Warwickshire, was suspended by his diocesan, for keeping a fast in his parish, and not observing the ceremonies. Mr. Jeffryes was forced from his flock; and Mr. Wroth and Mr. Erbery were prosecuted, when the latter resigned his vicarage, and left the diocese in peace. Great numbers in Kent were excommunicated and cast into prison. About thirty of the London ministers

* Rnshnorth's Collec. vol. iii. p. 353.—Nalson's Collec.vol. il. p.400,401. + Prynne'a Cant. Doome, p. 376.

t The number of ministers driven to New England by the bard dealings of the bishops, from the year 1620 to 1640, amounted to about ninety.— MS. Remarks, p. 919—921.

i Calamy's Contin. vol. 1. p. 330.

were convened before their diocesan; when many of them were suspended and excommunicated for refusing to receive the sacrament at the rails.* Mr. Miles Burket, vicar of Patteshall in Northamptonshire, was prosecuted in the high commission, for administering the sacrament without the rails, and for not bowing at the name of Jesus, t Mr. Burton, Mr. Prynne, and Dr. Bastwick, already mentioned, having been long confined in prison, were prosecuted in the starchamber, when they received the following dreadful sentence: —" Mr. Burton shall be deprived of his living, and degraded from his ministry, as Mr. Prynne and Dr. Bastwick had been already from their professions; they shall each be fined j£5,000; they shall stand in the pillory at Westminster, and have their ears cut off; and because Prynne had lost his ears already, the remainder of the stumps shall be cut off, and he shall be stigmatized on both his cheeks with the letters S. L. for a seditious libeller; and they shall all three suffer perpetual imprisonment in the remotest parts of the kingdom."!

The church of England and the governing prelates were now arrived at their highest power and splendour. The afflicted nonconformists, and those who favoured their causey felt the relentless vengeance of the star-chamber and high commission. Dr. Willia ms, the excellent Bishop of Lincoln, was now removed from the court, and retired to his diocese. 1iere he coned at the nonconformists, and spoke with some keenness against the ceremonies. He once said, " That the puritans were the king's best subjects, and he was sure they would carry all at last." Laud being informed of this expression, caused an information to be lodged against him in the star-chamber, when, after suspension from all his offices and benefits in the high commission, he was fined jglOjOOO to the king, j£l,000 to Sir John Mounson, and committed to the Tower during the king's pleasure. Being sent to the Tower, his library and all his goods were seized, and sold to pay the fine. His papers being seized, two letters were found written to him by Mr. Osbaldeston, chief

• Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p. 546—557. + Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 96.

J For a circumstantial account of tbe execution of this barbarous sentence, see Art. Henry Burton.

Ij Many of those who favoured the cause of the nonconformists, paid great sums of money to obtain their release from the ecclesiastical censure. And Mr. John Packer, a gentleman of exemplary piety, charity, and zeal for a further reformation, was most liberal in supporting tbe silenced ministers; and he paid £1,000 for one of them to be released.—MS, Chrtnohgy, vol.iii. A.D. 1640, p. 44.

master of Westminster school, containing certain dark expressions,* on the ground of which he was condemned in the additional fine of #5,000 to the king, and #3,000 to the archbishop, and kept close prisoner in the Tower. Mr. Osbaldeston was fined .#5,000 to the king, and #5,000 to the archbishop; to be deprived of all his spiritual promotions, to stand in the pillory before his own school, and have his ears nailed to it, and to be imprisoned during the king's pleasure. Mr. Osbaldeston being among the crowd in the court, when the sentence was pronounced, immediately went home, burnt some papers, and absconded, leaving a note on his desk in his study, with these words: " If the archbishop enquire for me, tell him I am gone beyond Canterbury." Mr. John Lilburne, afterwards a colonel in the army, for refusing to take an oath to answer all interrogatories concerning his importing and publishing seditious libels, was fined #5,000, and whipped through the streets from the Fleet to the pillory in Westminster. While in the pillory, he was gagged, then carried to the Fleet, and committed to close confinement, with irons on his hands and feet, where he remained betwixt two and three years, without any persons being allowed to see him.t

These terrible proceedings, without serving the interest of the church, awakened uersal resentment against those in power. Many thousand families were driven to Holland, and many thousands to New England.} This so alarmed the king and the council, that a proclamation was issued, April 30, 1637, observing, " That great numbers of his majesty's subjects were yearly transported to New England, with their families and whole estates, that they might be out of the reach of ecclesiastical authority ; his majesty therefore commands, that his officers of the several ports should suffer none to pass without license from the commissioners of the plantations, and a testimonial from their minister, of their conformity to the orders and discipline of the church." And to debar all ministers, it was ordered, " That whereas such ministers as are not conformable to the discipline and ceremonies of the church, do frequently transport themselves to the plantations, where they take liberty to nourish their factious and schismatical humours, to the hindrance of the

* These letters made mention of a little great mans and in another passage, the same person was denominated a little urchin. Such were the dark expressions which, by interpretation, were applied to Laud.

+ Rushworlh's Collec. vol. ii. p. 417, 803, 817.

t Sylvester's Life of Baxter, part i. p. 18.

good conformity and unity of the church; we therefore expressly command you, in his majesty's name, to suffer no clergyman to transport himself without a testimonial from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London."* The puritans must not be suffered to live peaceably at home, nor yet be allowed to take sanctuary in a foreign land. These unparalleled acts of cruel and tyrannical injustice in a protestant country, turned the hearts of tens of thousands to the cause of the puritans.

Notwithstanding theabove prohibitions, multitudes went on board ships in disguise, and got over to the new plantations. There were, indeed, eight ships in the river Thames bound for New England, and filled with puritan families, among whom was Oliver Cromwell ; who, seeing no end of the cruel oppressions in their native country, determined to spend the remainder of their days in America. But the council being informed of their design, issued an order " to stay those ships, and to put on shore all the provisions intended for the voyage." To prevent the same in future, the king prohibited all masters and owners of ships, from sending any ships with passengers to New England, without a special license from the privy council; " because," says he, " the people of New England are factious and unworthy our support."+

The puritans who remained at home still groaned under the merciless oppressions of the prelates. Mr. Obadiah Sedgwick was driven from his living and the people of his charge. Mr. Cox was summoned first before Bishop Hall, then Archbishop Laud. Mr. Simonds, rector of St. Martin's, Ironmonger-lane, London, and Mr. Daniel Votyer, rector of St. Peter's, West-cheap, were deprived, and forced to flee into Holland. Mr. Show was cited before Laud, and he fled to New England.} By the recommendation of Laud, Mr. Edward Moore, a student in the uersity of Oxford, was cast into prison, for the insignificant crime of wearing his hat in the town; and for his behaviour when reproved for his fault, he recommended him to be publicly whipped, and banished from the uersity.^ Mr. Bright was suspended for refusing to read the prayer against the Scots; and his brethren, the ministers of Kent, endured many troubles for the same crime. Mr. Barber was suspended and cast into prison, where he remained eleven months. Mr.

* Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 409.410.

+ Ibid. t Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p. 539—563.

S Wharton'.Troubles of Laud, vol. ii. p. 167.

Jessey and many others being assembled together for the purpose of fasting and prayer, were interrupted by the pursuivants, and sent to the Tower. Afterwards he was apprehended and several of his congregation, and committed to the Compter; but upon their application to the parliament, they were immediately released. Mr. Wilkinson was suspended, but restored by the house of commons.* Mr. Moreton, rector of Blisland in Cornwall, was driven from his living and his flock. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Todd were both silenced. Mr. Hieron was apprehended and prosecuted in the high commission, for very trivial matters.t By these proceedings of the bishops, many thousands of excellent christians and worthy subjects were ruined in their estates, and driven out of the country 4

In the year 1640, the convocation continued to sit, after the parliament was dissolved. The canons adopted in this synod, entitled " Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical treated upon by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, &c." are extremely superstitious and tyrannical. They required of all clergymen to swear " That they would never consent to the alteration of the present government of the church, by archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, &c." And if any beneficed person should refuse this ridiculous and cruel oath, " he shall after one month be suspended from his office; after a second month, he shall be suspended from his office and benefice; and after a third month, he shall be deprived of all his ecclesiastical promotions. These canons were evidently designed to crush all the puritans at once; but they were soon virtually annulled.||

November3, 1640, the Long Parliament first assembled, and continued sitting with some little interruption about eighteen years. The. members of this parliament were all members of the church of England, and nearly all advocates for episcopal government.! The first week was spent in appointing committees, and receiving the numerous petitions from all parts of the kingdom, craving a redress of grievances both in church and state.** Numerous petitions were also

* Calamy's Cootin. vol. i. p. 47, 91.

+ Calamy's Account, vol. ii. p. 144, 162, 222, 797.

% Mather's Hist of New Eng. b. iii. p. 136.

S Sparrow's Collec. p. 359, 360.

U The above convocation, says Clarendon, gave subsidies, enjoined an oath, and did things, which, in the best of times, might have been questioned; and therefore, in the worst, were sure to be condemned.—Hist, of Rebellion, vol. i. p. 116.

1 Clarendou'i Hut. vol. i. p. 184. •* WhUlocke's Memorial, p. 36.

presented by the puritans who had been many years under close confinement; when the parliament favourably received them, released the prisoners, and voted them to receive considerable sums out of the estates of their persecutors, by way of damages. They released Dr. Leighton, who had been imprisoned ten years; Mr. Smart, eleven or twelve years; and Mr. Brewer, fourteen years. Also, Burton, Prynne, Bastwick, Walker, Lilburne, Bishop Williams, and many others, now obtained their liberty. The above canons were, at the same time, condemned in the house of commons, as being against the king's prerogative, the fundamental laws of the realm, the liberty and property of the subject, and as containing divers other things tending to sedition and dangerous consequence. For which several of the bishops were impeached of high crimes and misdemeanours.* The archbishop was impeached of high treason, and committed to the Tower. +

The committee of accommodation was appointed by the upper house, to consider of such innovations as were proper to be taken away. It consisted of ten earls, ten bishops, and ten barons. They also appointed a sub-committee of bishops and learned divines, to prepare matters for debate, Bishop Williams being chairman of both.J The result of their conference was drawn up for the debate of the committee, in a number of propositions and queries. But all attempts at an accommodation were blasted by the obstinacy of the bishops, and by the discovery of the plot for bringing the army up to London to dissolve the parliament. This widened the distance betwixt the king and the two houses, and broke up the committee, without bringing any thing to perfection. The moderation and mutual compliance of these divines, it is justly observed, might have saved the whole body of episcopacy, and prevented the civil war : but the court bishops expected no good from them, suspecting that the puritans would betray the church. Some hot

* Rusliworth's Collec. vol. iv. p. 359.
+ Prynne'B Breviate of Laud, p. 23, 24.

J The names of these bishops and learned divines, were as follows:
Dr. Williams, bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Richard Iloldiworth,

Dr. Usher, archbishop of Armagh,
Dr. Morton, bishop of Durham,
Dr. Hall, bishop of Exeter,
Dr. Samuel Ward,
Dr. John Prideauz,
Dr. Robert Sanderson,
Dr. Daniel Featley,
Dr, Ralph Brownrigg,

Dr. John Hacket,
Dr. William Twisse,.
Dr. Cornelius Burgess,
Mr. John White,
Mr. Stephen Marshall,
Mr. Edmund Calamy,
Mr. Thomas Hill.
Fuller's Church Hist. b. xi. p. 174.

spirits would abate nothing of the episcopal power or profit, but maintained, that to yield any thing was giving up the cause to the opposite party.*

In the year 1641, the parliament introduced two bills, one to abolish the high commission court, the other the star-chamber, both of which obtained the royal assent.t The former of these courts, observes Lord Clarendon, had assumed a disputable power of imposing fines ; that it sometimes exceeded in the severity of its sentences; that it rendered itself very unpopular; and had managed its censures with more sharpness, and less policy, than the times would bear: but he declares he did not know that any innocent clergyman suffered by any of its ecclesiastical censures.} The abolition of these courts effectually clipped the wings of the persecuting prelates.

Numerous petitions being sent up from all quarters for preaching ministers, a committee of forty members of the house was appointed, called the committee of preaching ministers, to send ministers where there were vacancies, ana provide for their maintenance.^ And there being many complaints of idle and licentious clergymen, another committee was appointed, called the committee of scandalous ministers, to examine these complaints.|| A third committee was appointed, called the committee of plundered ministers, for the relief of such godly ministers as were driven from their cures, for adhering to the parliament.i Many pious and learned divines were members of these committees, who employed their abilities to the utmost for public usefulness.

Upon the presentation of numerous grievances from all

* Fuller's Church Hist. b. xi. p. 175.

+ Scobell's Collections, part i. p. 9, 13.

t Clarendon's Hist. vol. f. p. 221,222.—The high commission, says Hume, extended its jurisdiction over the whole kingdom, and over all orders of men; and every circumstance of its authority, and all its methods of proceeding, were contrary to the clearest principles of law and natural equity. The commissioners were impowered to administer the oath ex officio, by which a person was bound to answer all qnestions, and might thereby be obliged to accuse himself or his most intimate friend. The fines were discretionary, and often occasioned the total ruin of the offender, contrary to the established laws of the kingdom. This court was n real Inquisition; attended with all the iniquities, as well as cruellies, inseparable from that tribunal. It was armed, says Granger, with an inquisitorial power, to force any one to confess what he knew, and to punish him at discretion. Hume's Hist, of Eng. vol. v. p. 189.—Granger'* Biog. Hist. vol. i. p. 206.

Ij Clarendon's Hist. vol. i. p. 295.

jj Sylvester's Life of Baxter, part i. p. 19.

* Walker's Suf. Clergy, part i. p. 73.

parts of the kingdom, the parliament appointed a committee to draw out of them all, such kind of remonstrance as would give his majesty an impartial representation of the deplorable state of the nation. The remonstrance* was presented to the king, December 1, 1641; and enumerates the grievances, oppressions, and unbounded acts of the prerogative, since his majesty's accession: among which were " The suspension, deprivation, excommunication, and degradation of laborious, learned, and pious ministers.— The sharpness and severity of the high commission, assisted by the council-table, not much less grievous than the Romish inquisition—The rigour of the bishops' courts in the country, whereby numbers of tradesmen have been impoverished, and driven to Holland and New England.— The advancement to ecclesiastical preferments, of those who were most officious in promoting superstition, and most virulent in railing against godliness and honesty.— The design of reconciling the church of England with that of Rome.—And the late canons and oath imposed upon the clergy, under the most grievous penalties."+ But the king was displeased with the remonstrance; he published an answer to it, and issued his royal proclamation, requiring an exact conformity to the religion as by law established.} During the year 1642, the king and the parliament put themselves respectively in a posture of defence, and used those military precautions which soon led to all the horrors of a civil war, and deluged the land with blood. Both parties published their declarations, in justification of their own cause. The king set up his standard at Nottingham, where about 2,000 came to him; and greatly augmented his forces out of Shropshire, Worcestershire, and other counties. The parliament raised a gallant army under the command of the Earl of Essex. Many excellent divines became chaplains to the several regiments. Dr. Burgess and Mr. Marshall, to the general's own regiments; Mr. Obadiah Sedgwick, to Colonel Hollis's regiment; Dr. Downing, to Lord Roberts'; Mr. John Sedgwick, to the Earl of Stamford's ; Dr. Spurstowe, to Mr. Hampden's; Mr. Perkins, to

* The debates in parliament about the remonstrance lasted from three o'clock in the afternoon, till ten next morning, which occasioned Sir B. R. to say, " It was the verdict of a starved jury." Oliver Cromwell told Lord Falkland, that if the remonstrance had been rejected, he would have sold all his estates next morning, and never have seen England any more.— Whitlockis Mem. p. 49.—Clarendon's Hist. vol. i. p. 246, 247.

+ Rush-worth's Collec. vol. v. p. 438—Nalson's Collec. vol. ii. p. 694

t Rushworth's Collec. vol. v. p. 456.

Colonel Goodwin's; Mr. Moore, to Lord Wharton's; Mr. Adoniram Byfield, to Sir Henry Cholmley's; Mr. Nalton, to Colonel Grantham's; Mr. Ashe, either to Lord Brook's or the Earl of Alanchester's; and Mr. Morton, to Sir Arthur Hasilrigg's; with many more.*

The house of commons had already resolved, " That the Lord's day should be duly observed and sanctified; that all dancing and other sports, either before or after divine service, should be forborn and restrained; that the preaching of God's word be promoted in all parts of the kingdom; and that ministers be encouraged in this work."t May 5, 1643, the parliament issued an order, " That the Book of Sports shall be burnt by the common hangman, in Cheapside and other public places," which was done by direction of the sheriffs of London and Middlesex. J By an ordinance of both houses, it was appointed, " That no person shall henceforth on the Lord's day, use or be present at any wrestling, shooting, bowling, ringing of bells for pleasure, mask, wake, church-ale, games, dancing, sports, or other pastime, under the several penalties annexed." An ordinance also passed for removing all monuments of superstition and idolatry, commanding all altars and tables of stone to be demolished, communion tables to be removed from the east end of the churchy the rails to be removed, the chancel to be levelled, tapers, candlesticks, basons, &c. to be removed from the communion tables; and all crosses, crucifixes, and images, to be taken away and defaced. And by another, it was appointed, " That all copes, surplices, superstitious vestments, roods, fonts, and organs, be utterly defaced."^

June 12, 1643, an ordinance passed both houses for calling the assembly of divines.|| This assembly was not a convocation according to the diocesan modal, nor was it called by the votes of ministers according to the presbyterian way; but the parliament chose all the members themselves, merely with a view to obtain their opinion and advice, in settling the government, liturgy, and doctrine of the church. Their debates were confined to such things as the parliament proposed. Some counties had two members, and some only one. But to appear impartial, and

< Sylvester's Life of Baxter, part i. p. 42. + Nalson's Collec. vol. li. p. 482.

t An act of greater scorn, or greater insolency and disloyal impudence, says Dr. Heylin, was never offered to a sovereign and anointed Prince, than this severe usage of the Book of Sports.—Hitt. of Prei. p. 465.

$ Scobell's Collec. part i. p. 53, 69. « Ibid. p. 42.

give each parly the liberty to speak, they chose many of the most learned episcopalians, as well as those of other denominations.* Lord Clarendon reproaches these pious and learned divines, of whom a list is given below, + by saying, " That some were infamous in their lives and conversation, and most of them of very mean parts, if not of scandalous ignorance, and of no other reputation than of malice to the

* Many of the episcopal divines, several of whom were bishops, did

William Greenhill, Slepney.

Edward Peale, Compton.
John Green, Pencombe.

Andrew Perne, Wilby.

Samuel de la Place, French Church.

John de la March, French Church. John Dury.

Philip Delme.

Sydrach Sympson, London.

John Langley, West-Tuderly.

Richard Cleyton, Showel.

Arthur Salwey, Severn Stoke.

John Ley, A.M. Budworth.

Charles Herle, A.M. Win wick, (prolocutor after Dr. Twisse.)

Herbert Palmer, B. D. Ashwell, (assessor after Mr. White.)

Daniel Cawdrey, A.M.

Henry Painter, B.D. Exeter.

Henry Scudder, Collingbourne.

Thomas Hill, D.D. Tichmarch.

William Reynor, B.D. Egham.

Thomas Goodwin, D.D. London.

William Spurstowe, D.D. Hampden.

Matthew Newcomen, Dedham.

John Conant, D.D. Limiugton.

Edmund Staunton, D.D. Kingston.

Anthony Burgess, Sutton -Cold field.

William Rathband, Highgate.

Francis Cheynel, D.D. Petwortb.

Henry Wilkinson, junior, B.D.

ObadiahSedgwick. B.D.Coggeshall.

Edward Corbet, Mortem coll. Ox ford.

Samuel Gibson, Burley.

Thomas-Coleman, A.M. Bliton.

Theod. Buckhurst, Overton-Watertile.

William Carter, London.
Peter Smith, D.D. Bark way.
John Maynard, A.M.
William Price, Covent-Garden.
John Wincop, D.D. St. Martin's.
William Bridge, A.M. Yarmouth.
Peter Sterry, London.
William Mew, B.D. Esington.
Henj. Pickering, East-Hoathly.
John Strickland, B.D. New Samm.

+ William Twisse, D.D. Newbury,

prolocutor. Corn. Burgess, D.D. }

Watford, f Assessors

John White, Dorches-f

ter, ) William Gonge, D.D. Blarkfriars. Robert Harris, B.D. Hanwell. Tho. Gataker, B.D. Rotherhithe. Oliver Bowles, B.D. Sutton. Edward Reynolds, D.D. Bramston. Jeremiah Whitaker, A.M. Stretton. Anthony Tuckney, B.D. Boston. John Arrowsmitb, Lynn. Simeon Ashe, St. Bride's. Philip Nye, Kimbolton. Jeremiah Burroughs, A.M. Stepney. John Lightfoot, D.D. A My. Stanley Gower, Brampton-Bryan. Richard Heyricke,A.M. Manchester. Thomas Case, London. Thomas Temple, D.D. Battersea. George Gipps, Ayleston. Thomas Carter, Oxfoid. Humphrey Chambers, B.D. Cla

▼erton.

Tho. Micklethwaite, Cherryburton.
John Gibbon, Waltham.
Christ. Tisdale, Uphurstborne.
John Phillips, Wrentham.
George Walker, B.D. London.
Edm. Calatny, B.D. Aldermanbury.
Joseph Caryl, A.M. Lincoln's-inn.
Lazarus Seaman, D.D. London.
Henry Wilkinson, B.D. Waddesdon,
Richard Vines, A.M. Calcot.
Nicholas Profiet, Marlborough.
Steph. Marshall, B.D. Finchingfield.
Joshua Hoyle, D.D. Dublin.
Thomas Wilson, A.M. Otham.
Thomas Hodge., B.D. Kensington.
Tho. Bayley, B.D. Maningford-
Crucis.

Francis Taylor, A.M. Yalding.
Thomas Young, Stow-market.
Tho. Valentine, B.D, Chalfont St.
Giles.

church."* But Mr. Baxter, who knew them much better than his lordship, says, " They were men of eminent learning and godliness, ministerial abilities and fidelity. And the christian world, since the days of the apostles, has never had a synod of more excellent divines, than this synod, and the synod of Dort."+ Many of the lords and commons were joined with the divines, to see that they did not go beyond their commission.t The assembly presented to the parliament the confession of faith, the larger and shorter catechisms, the directory of public worship, and their humble advice concerning church government. The " Assembly's Annotations," as it is commonly called, is unjustly ascribed to the assembly. The parliament employed the authors of that work, several of whom were members of this learned synod. The assembly first met July 1,1643, in Henry the Seventh's chapel, and continued to meet several years.

Soon after the meeting of the assembly, a bond of union was agreed upon, entitled " A Solemn League and Covenant for Reformation, and Defence of Religion, the Honour and Happiness of the King, and the Peace and Safety of the three Kingdoms of England, Scotland and

Humphrey Ilardwick. William Goad.

Jasper Hickes, A.M. Lawrick. John Foxcroft, Gotham.

Joho Bond, LL.D. Exeter. John Ward.

Henry Hall, B.D. Norwich. Richard Byfield, A.M.

Thomas Ford, A.M. Francis Woodcock, Cambridge.

Tho. Thorowgood, Massingham. J. Jackson, Cambridge.

Peter Clark, A.M. Carnaby.

The Commissioners for Scotland were, Lord Maitland. Samuel Rutterford. Robert Baylie.

Alexander Henderson. George Gillespie.

The Scribes were,

Henry Roborough. John Wallis. Adoniram Byfield.

* Clarendon's Hist. vol. i. p. 415.

+ Sylvester's Life of Baxter, part i. p. 73.

t Algernon Earl of North Bab. John White, esq.

William Earl of Bedford. Bulstrode Whitlocke, esq.

Philip Earl of Pembroke. Humphrey Sallway, esq.

William Earl of Salisbury. Oliver St. John, esq. king's solicitor.

Henry Earl of Holland. Mr. Serjeant Wild.

Edward Earl of Manchester. Sir Benjamin Rudyard, knt.

William Lord Viscount Say and Sele. John Pym, esq.

Edward Lord Viscount Conway. Sir John Clotworthy, knt.

Philip Lord Wharton. John Maynard, esq.

Edward Lord Howard. Sir Henry Vane, junior, knt.

John Selden, esq. William Pierpoint, esq.

Francis Rouse, esq, William Wheeler, esq.

Edmund Prideaux, esq; Sir Thomas Harrington, knt.

Sir Henry Vane, senior, knt. Walter Young, esq.

John Glyn, esq. recorder of London. Sir John Evelin, knt.

Ireland."* It was subscribed by both houses of parliament, the Scots commissioners, and the assembly of divines, in St. Margaret's church, Westminster; and afterwards required to be subscribed by all persons above the age of eighteen years.

In addition to the committees already mentioned, the parliament appointed country committees, in the different parts of the kingdom; and afterwards the committee of sequestrations. They were empowered to examine, and sequester, upon sufficient witness, such clergymen as were scandalous in their lives, ill-affected to the parliament, or fomenters of the unnatural war betwixt the king and parliament. Multitudes of the conformable clergy were cited before these committees, and such as were found guilty of notorious immorality, or an avowed hostility to the parliament, were deprived of their livings. Though it cannot be supposed in such times, that no innocent person unjustly suffered; yet, " many" says Fuller, " were cast out for their misdemeanours, and some of their offences were so foul, it is a shame to report them, crying to justice for punishment."+ And, says Mr. Baxter, " in all the countries where he was " acquainted, six to one at least, if not many more, that " were sequestered by the committees, were by the oaths of " witnesses proved insufficient or scandalous, or especially " guilty of drunkenness and swearing. This I know," says he, 't will displease the party, but 1 am sure it istrue."}t

In the year 1644, Archbishop Laud was brought to trial by the two houses of parliament, and being found guilty of high treason, was beheaded on Tower-hill. He was a prelate of imperious and bigotted principles, and rash and furious in his conduct, especially towards the puritans. His councils were high and arbitrary, tending to the ruin of the king and constitution. He obtained the ascendancy over his majesty's conscience and councils. § Though he was no papist, he was much inclined to the popish impositions and superstitious rites, and to meet the church of Rome half way. While it was Laud's " chief object to maintain the outward splendour of the church, by daily increasing the number of pompous ceremonies and scan

• Clarendon's Hist. vol. ii. p. 287.

+ Fuller's Church His*, b. xi. p. 207.

+ Sylvester's Life of Baxter, part i. p. 74.

^ •* Some of his majesty's ministers drove so fast," laysWelwnod, " that it *u no wonder both the wheels and chariot were broken. And it was owing in a great part to the indiscreet zeal of a mitred head, (meaning Laud) who had got an ascendant over his master's conscience and councils, that both the monarchy and hierarchy owed afterwards their fall."—Memoirs, p. 37.

dalous innovations, he made many fair approaches towards Rome, in point of doctrine."* Under his primacy the church of England evidently assumed a very popish appearance. And, according to Hume, the court of Rome itself entertained hopes of regaining its authority in this island; and, in order to forward Laud's supposed good intentions, an offer was twice made him, in private, of a cardinal's hat, which he declined accepting. His answer was, as he observes himself, " that something dwelt within him which would not suffer his compliance, till Rome was Other than it is."+

The London ministers having presented a petition to parliament, for a settlement of the ecclesiastical discipline and government, according to the directory of public worship, they had the thanks of the house; and a committee was appointed to confer with the assembly, and to ascertain how far tender consciences might be borne with, consistent with the peace of the kingdom and the word of God.f An ordinance soon passed to set aside the Book of Common Prayer, and to establish the directory.^ The presbyterians now gaining the ascendancy, discovered a strong propensity to grasp at the same arbitrary power, as that under which they had formerly and for a long time groaned. The parliament published two ordinances, one against the preaching of unoidained ministers, the other agafnst blasphemy and heresy, both of which became the engines of oppression and persecution. The latter, says Mr. Neal, is one of the most shocking laws I have met with in restraint of religious liberty, and shews, that the governing presbyterians would have made a terrible use of their power, had they been supported by the sword of the civil magistrate. Several ministers of puritan principles, became sufferers by these ordinances. Mr. Clarkson having embraced the sentiments of the antipaedobaptists, was cast into prison, and required to recant, for the marvellous sin of dipping. Mr. Lamb, Mr. Denne, and Mr. Knollys, all of the same denomination, were apprehended and committed to prison. Mr.

• May's Hist, of Parliaments, p. 22—23.

+ Prynne's Breviate of Laud, p. 18.—Hume's Hist of Eng. vol. vi. p. 209.—It is observed that a court lady, daughter of the Earl of Devonshire, having turned papist, was asked by Laud the reasons of her conversion. " It is chiefly," said she, " because I hate to travel in a crowd." The meaning of this expression being demanded, she replied, " I perceive your grace and many others are making haste to Rome; and, therefore, in order to prevent my being crowded, I have gone before you."—Ibid. p. 210.

t Whitlocke's Mem. p. 99.

4 Scobell's Collec. part i. p. 75, 97.

Knollys was afterwards prosecuted at the sessions, and sent prisoner to London. Mr. Oates was tried for his life, but acquitted. Mr. Biddle was cast into prison, where he remained seven years.

The civil war having now continued several years, introduced dreadful confusion and distress into every part of the kingdom. Numerous were the sufferers on both sides. But the parliament's army proving every where triumphant, the king himself was taken prisoner. During these commotions, the rump parliament passed a decree to establish a government without a king and house of lords, and so governed alone. They erected a high court of justice, brought the king to trial, condemned him, erected a scaffold before Whitehall, and there, before a large concourse of people, struck off his head, January 30, 1649. " The king had a mistaken principle, that kingly government in the state, could not stand without episcopal government in the church. Therefore, as the bishops flattered him by preaching up the sovereign prerogative, and inveighing against the puritans as factious and disloyal: so he protected them in their pomp and pride, and insolent practices against all the godly and sober people in the land."* " An immoderate desire of power, beyond what the constitution did allow of, was the rock on which he split."t

Sect. V.

From the Death of King Charles I. to the passing of the Act of Uniformity, in 16G2.

The King being taken out of the way, Cromwell proposed a Commonwealth, till he laid a foundation for his own advancement. The parliament drew up a form of Eng AgeWent, to be subscribed by all persons above eighteen years of age, in these words:—" I do promise to be true and faithful to the commonwealth as it is now established, without a king or house of lords." No man who refused this engagement could have the benefit of suing another at law, or hold any mastership in either uersity, or travel

* Memoirs of Col. Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 129, 180.

+ Welwood's Memoirs, p. 87.—The puritan ministers of thepresbyterian denomination in London being charged with bringing the king to the block, published a " Vindication" of themselves, declaring the falsehood of the charge, and protesting their abhorrence of the fact, and their unshaken loyalty to his majesty's person and just government,—Calamy'i Contin. vol. ii- p. 737.

more than a certain number of miles from his own house,* Therefore, Mr. Vines, Mr. Blake, and many other puritan ministers, for refusing to subscribe, were turned out of their livings.

The terms of conformity were now less rigid than at any time since the commencement of the civil wars. The oppressive statutes of the parliament were relaxed or not acted upon, the covenant was laid aside, and no other civil qualification required of ministers, besides the engagement. Though the episcopal divines were forbidden to read the liturgy in form, they might frame their prayers as near it as they pleased; and upon this principle, many of them complied with the government. Numerous episcopal assemblies were coned at, where the liturgy was read, till they were found plotting against the government: nor would they have been denied an open toleration, if they would have given security for their peaceable behaviour, and not meddled with the affairs of government, t

Cromwell and his friends, indeed, gave it out, that they could not understand what right the magistrate had to use compulsion in matters of religion. They thought that all men ought to be left to the dictates of their own consciences, and that the civil magistrate could not interpose in any religious concerns, without ensnaring himself in the guilt of persecution^ Dr. George Bates, an eminent royalist, and an avowed enemy to Cromwell, observes, " That the protector indulged the use of the common prayer in families, and in private conventicles; and it cannot be denied, that churchmen had a great deal more favour and indulgence than under the parliament; which would never have been interrupted, had they not insulted the protector, and forfeited their liberty by their seditious practices and ploltings against his person and government."^

December 16, 1653, Oliver Cromwell was installed Lord Piiotector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, when an Instrument Of Government was adopted and subscribed. The thirty-seventh article observes, " that all who profess faith in God by Jesus Christ, shall be protected in their religion."|| The parliament afterwards voted, that all should be tolerated, or indulged, who professed the fundamentals of Christianity; and certain

* Sylvester's Life of Baiter, part i. p. 64.
t Neal's Puritans, vol. It. p. 61.
t Sylvester's Life of Baxter, part ii. p. 193.
^ Neal's Puritans, vol. iv. p. 102.

H Wbitlocke's Mem. p. 658—658.

learned divines were appointed lo draw up the fundamentals to be presented to the house. Those who acted were Drs. Owen, Goodwin, and Cheynell, and Messrs. Marshall, Reyner, Nye, Sympson, Vines, Manton, Jacomb, and Baxter. Archbishop Usher was nominated, but declined his attendance.*

During the national confusions there were many persons denominated fifth monarchy-men, chiefly of the baptist

Sersuasion. They were in immediate expectation of King esus, and of the commencement of his glorious, personal reign of a thousand years upon the earth. Though they were avowedly of commonwealth principles, they were extremely hostile to Cromwell's government. + Several of them having discovered considerable enmity and opposition against the protector, were apprehended and committed to prison; among whom were Mr. Rogers, Mr. Feake, and Mr. Vavasor Powell. On account of the rigorous laws still in force, they were kept in prison a long time, under the plea of mercy, and to save their lives.

The protector having discovered some inconvenience from the approbation of ministers being left wholly to the presbyterians, he contrived a middle way, by joining the various parties together, and committing the business to certain men of approved abilities and integrity, belonging to each denomination. For this purpose, an ordinance was passed, March 20, 1654, appointing thirty-eight commissioners to this office, commonly called Tryers.j Another ordinance was also passed, " for ejecting scandalous, ignorant, and insufficient ministers and schoolmasters." It appointed certain lay-commissioners for every county, to be joined by ten or more of the best divines, as their assistants. They were required to call before them any public preacher, vicar, curate, or schoolmaster, reputed to be ignorant, scandalous, or insufficient.^

This ordinance, it must be acknowledged, bore hard upon some of the episcopal clergy; among whom were Dr. Pordage, charged with blasphemy and heresy; and Mr. Bushnal, charged with drunkenness, profanation of the sabbath, gaming, and disaffection to the government. For these crimes, they were both turned out of their livings.y Also, by the act for propagating the gospel in Wales, many ignorant and scandalous ministers were ejected, and others

• Sylvester's Life of Baxter, part ii. p. 197. + Tbnrloe's State Papers, vol. i. p. 621, 641.

t Scobell's Collec. part ii. p. 279. $ Ibid. p. 335, 340—347.

i Ncal's Puritans, vol. It. p. 112,113

put in their places. It is observed, that in a short time, there were one hundred and fifty good preachers in the thirteen Welch counties, most of whom preached three or four times a week.* But the generality of the ejected clergy did not preach at all, or were scandalous in their lives; and the commissioners affirm, that of the sixteen they turned out in Cardiganshire, only three of them were preachers, and those of very immoral characters

The protector's health, through his excessive toils and fatigues, began at length to decline. And having nominated a successor, he died of a fever, September 3, 1658, aged fifty-nine years. Never was man more highly extolled, nor more basely vilified, according as men's interests led their judgments. " The royalists," says Mr. Baxter, " abhorred him as a most perfidious hypocrite, and the presbyterians thought him little better. He kept up his approbation of a godly life in the general, and of all that was good, except that which the interest of his sinful cause engaged him to be against. I perceived," our author adds, " that it was his design to do good in the main, and to promote the gospel and the interests of goodness, more than any had done before him.":}: His son Richard, according to his father's will, succeeded him. Numerous addresses were sent from all parts of the country, congratulating the new protector. He was of a calm and peaceable temper, but unfit to be at the helm in such boisterous times. Richard Cromwell finding the nation involved in difficulties, tamely resigned his high dignity and government, after enjoying it only eight months.

The nation being tired of changes, and now in danger of uersal anarchy, soon discovered its uneasiness. General Monk, with his army, was called out of Scotland; and upon his arrival in London, he declared in favour of the king. A council of state was called; and having agreed to invite home the king, the question was put, " Whcther they should call him in upon treaty and covenant, or entirely confide in him?" After some debate, it was resolved to trust him absolutely. The new parliament assembling, they unanimously voted the king home. He •was sent for to Holland, when Mr. Calamy, Mr. Bowles, Dr. Manton, and some others, were deputed by the parliament and city to attend him. His majesty gave them such encouraging promises, as raised in some of them very high

• Whitlocke's Mem. p. 518.

+ Neal's Puritans, vol. It. p. 116.

* Sylvester'* Life of Baxter, part i. p. 71, 98.

expectations. Upon the entrance of the king, May 29,16G0, as he passed through the city towards Westminster, the London ministers, by the hands of old Mr. Arthur Jackson, presented his majesty with a richly adorned bible; which he received, saying, " It shall be the rule of my government and my life.'»

King Charles II. being now seated on the throne of his ancestors, the commencement of his reign was a continued jubilee. But from the period of his accession, he grasped at arbitrary power, and shewed but little inclination to depend upon parliaments.+ " The restoration," says Burnet, " brought with it the throwing off the very professions of virtue and piety, and entertainments and drunkenness overrun the three kingdoms. The king had a good understanding; and knew well the state of affairs both at home and abroad. He had a softness of temper that charmed all who came near him, till they found out how little they could depend on good looks, kind words, and fair promises; in which he was liberal to an excess, because he intended nothing by them, but to get rid of importunities. He seemed to have no sense of religion. He was no atheist, but disguised his popery to the last."}

Upon his majesty's accession, many of the puritans were in great hopes of favour. Besides the promises of men in power, they had an assurance from the king, in his declaration from Breda, " That he should grant liberty to tender consciences, and that no man should be questioned for a difference of opinion in matters of religion, who did not disturb the peace of the kingdom.Afterwards, the king having issued his declaration concerning ecclesiastical matters, dated October 25,1660; and the London ministers having presented to him their address of thanks, his majesty returned them this answer: " Gentlemen, I will endeavour to give you all satisfaction, and to make you as happy as myself."|| All this was, indeed, most encouraging. Their hopes were further cherished by ten of their number being made the king's chaplains, though none of them preached, except Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Spurstowe, Mr. Calamy, and Mr. Baxter, once each.i But all their hopes were soon blasted. Many hundreds of worthy ministers enjoying sequestered livings, were displaced soon after his majesty's return. The fellows and heads of colleges in the two uersities, who

» Palmer's Noncon. Mem. vol.1, p. 20. + Wei wood's Memoirs, p. 121. $ Burnet's Hist, of his Time, vol. i. p. 93.

§ Whitlorke's Mem. p. 703. |) Kennet's Chronicle, p. SIS.

H Sylvester't Life of Baxter, part ii. p. 229.

had been ejected, were restored, and the others cast out.* Bishops being placed in most of the sees, and the hierarchy restored to its former splendour, though the presbyterians still flattered themselves with hopes of a comprehension, the independents and baptists sunk in despair.

Here was an end, says Mr. Neal, of those distracted times, which our historians have loaded with all the infamy and reproach that the wit of man could invent. The puritan ministers have been decried as ignorant mechanics, canting preachers, enemies to learning, and no better than public robbers. The common people have been stigmatized as hypocrites. Their looks, their dress, and behaviour, have been represented in the most odious colours; yet we may challenge these declaimers to produce any period since the reformation, wherein there was less open profaneness and impiety, and more of the spirit as well as appearance of religion. Better laws, he adds, were never made against vice, or more rigorously executed. Drunkenness, fornication, profane swearing, and every kind of debauchery, were justly deemed infamous, and uersally discountenanced. The clergy were laborious to an excess, in preaching, praying, catechising, and visiting the sick. The magistrates were exact in suppressing all kinds of games, stage-plays, and abuses in public houses; and a play had not been acted in any theatre in England, for almost twenty years.t

But the court and bishops were now at ease. The doctrines of passive obedience and nonresistance were revived. And the puritans began to prepare for those persecutions which presently followed. Mr. Crofton, who had been very zealous for the king's restoration, for having written in favour of the covenant, was deprived of his living, and sent close prisoner to the Tower, where he was not permitted to have pen, ink, or paper.} Mr. Parsons, a noted royalist, was fined J£200, and cast into prison, for nonconformity. The celebrated Mr. John Howe was committed to prison; and multitudes were sequestered and prosecuted in the ecclesiastical courts, for not wearing the surplice and observing the ceremonies. These were powerful indications of the approaching storm.

Upon Vernier's insurrection,^ Mr. Knollys and many

* Rennet's Chronicle, p. 152, 153, 173, 221.

+ Neal's Puritans, vol. It. p. 269. $ Kennet's Chronicle, p. (01.

S Mr. Thomas Venner, a wine-cooper, with about fifty of bis admirers, being in expectation of a fifth uersal monarchy, under the personal reign of King Jesus upon the earth, raised an insurrection in the city. But their mad scheme was frustrated. Many of them were killed in the contest; and Venner and some others were seized, tried, condemned, and executed. —Burnet's Hist, of his Time, vol. i. p. 160.

other innocent persons, were dragged to Newgate, where they continued eighteen weeks, xhe rebellion of Venner occasioned a royal proclamation, prohibiting all anabaptists and other sectaries from worshipping God in public, except at their parish churches. This unnatural edict was another signal for persecution. Mr. Biddle was tried at the public sessions, fined one hundred pounds, and cast into prison, where he soon after died. Mr. John James was seized in the pulpit, tried, condemned, and beheaded. His bowels were then burnt, and his body being quartered, was placed upon the four gates of the city of London, and his head first upon London bridge, then opposite his meetinghouse in Bulstake-alley. <

In order to crush the puritans in every corner of the land, and strike all nonconformists at once dumb, the famous " Act of Uniformity " was passed, requiring a perfect conformity to the Book of Common Prayer, and the rites and ceremonies of the church. This struck the nonconformists with uersal consternation. The unmerciful act took place August 24, 1662, justly denominated the Black BarthoLomew-day. By this act, " it is well known, that nearly u 2,500 faithful ministers of Hie gospel were silenced. And " it is affirmed, upon a modest calculation, that it procured " the untimely death of 3,000 nonconformists, and the ruin u of 60,000 families."* And for what purpose were these cruelties inflicted ? To establish an uniformity in all ecclesiastical matters. A charming word, indeed ! for the thing itself is still wanting, even among those who promoted these tragic scenes. But this is the closing period of the present work. These barbarities are sufficiently delineated by our excellent historians.t

» Mather's Hist, of New England, b. iii. p. 4.—" The world," says Bishop Kennet, " has reason to admire not only the wisdom, but even the " moderation of this act, as being effectually made for ministerial confor*' mity alone, and leaving the people unable to complain of any import' " Hon I /"—Konnet's Hist, of Eng. vol. iii. p. 243.

+ Calamy's Account and Continuation, vol. iv.—And Palmer's Nodcod. Mem. vol. iii.

i